Full text of "The Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carter Collection of Dutch Paintings"

See other formats

LACMA

Collections

Hendrick Avercamp

Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde

Anthonie van Borssom

Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder

JanDirksz. Both

Dirck de Bray

Jan van de Cappelle

Pieter Claesz.

Adriaen Coorte
Aelbert Cuyp
Jan van Goyen
Willem Claesz. Heda
Jan van der Hey den
Meindert Hobbema
Jan van Huysum
Willem Kalf
Philips Koninck
Aert van derNeer
Clara Peeters
Jan Porcellis
Frans Post
Adam Pynacker
Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael
and Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem
Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael
Salomon van Ruysdael
Pieter Jansz. Saenredam
Adriaen van de Velde
Esaias van de Velde
Willem van de Velde the Younger
Willem van de Velde the Younger
and workshop
Simon de Vlieger
Emanuel de Witte

The Mr. and Mrs.
Edward Carter
Collection
of Dutch Paintings

By Amy L. Walsh

Technical Reports by Joseph Fro nek

Infrared Reflectography Analysis by Elma O’Donoghue

Edited by Leah Lehmbeck

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

The Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carter Collection
of Dutch Paintings

Published by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
5905 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90036
(323) 857-6000

www.lacma.org/publications

COVER

Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder,
Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge , 1619
(detail, cat. no. 4). Oil on copper,

11 x 9 Vi 6 in. (27.9 x 23 cm).

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
(M.2003.108.7)

PAGE 10

Peter Jansz. Saenredam, Interior
of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht , 1651
(detail, cat. no. 29). Oil on wood,

19 Vs x 14 Vs in. (48.6 x 35.9 cm).

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
(M.2003.108.2)

For LACMA

publisher Lisa Gabrielle Mark
editor Kathleen Luhrs with Marjorie Schwartz
rights and reproductions Carly Ann Rustebakke
and Piper Severance

designers Lorraine Wild and Xiaoqing Wang,
with Tommy Huang, Green Dragon Office
photography Peter Brenner, Steve Oliver,
and Jonathan Urban

CONSERVATION PHOTOGRAPHY Yosi PozeiloV
proofreader Fronia W. Simpson

This book is typeset in Lexicon N02

PAGE 28

Clara Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses ,
Artichoke , and Cherries , 1615
(detail, cat. no. 21). Oil on wood,

13 Vs x 18% in. (33.3 x 46.7 cm).

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
(M.2003.108.8)

PAGE 237

Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain
Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses,
ca. 1643 (detail, cat. no. 18).

Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in.

(55.6 x 44.1 cm). Gift of Mr. and Mrs.
Edward W. Carter (M.2009.106.22)

contents _ Director’s Foreword Michael Govan

Acknowledgments Amyl. Walsh

An Unerring Eye Amyl. Walsh

Note to the Reader: Technical Reports

Joseph Fronek and Elma O’Donoghue

Catalogue Entries Amyl. Walsh

Technical Reports by Joseph Fronek

Infrared Reflectography Analysis by Elma O’Donoghue

Note to the Reader: How to Read Provenance

Amyl. Walsh

Appendix
Bibliography
Photograph Credits
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Board of Trustees, 2019

273

DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD

A major force in driving the independent formation of the Los Angeles County

Museum of Art (LACMA) in 1965 and the first president of its board of directors,
Edward William Carter was also a deeply sensitive connoisseur. His interest in
collecting seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes and still lifes of extraordinarily
high quality resulted in a superb selection of quiet masterworks, largely unmatched in private
hands. Together with his wife, Hannah, who was equally supportive of the museum, its
goals, and its service to the public, he gifted the extraordinary collection they had assembled
to LACMA in 2009.

Published on the tenth anniversary of the Carters' historic gift, this catalogue offers new
scholarship, supported by technical discoveries made by our conservation team, in celebration
of an important group of European paintings from our encyclopedic collections. It is with
great enthusiasm that we present this catalogue as part of our initiative to publish significant
scholarly content about our permanent collection and to make it available online, easily
accessible to scholars, connoisseurs, students, and the general public. It joins a catalogue of
highlights from our South and Southeast Asian collection and our three-volume Gifts of
European Art from TheAhmanson Foundation .

The thirty-six paintings that make up the Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter collection
comprise some of the best examples of seventeenth-century Dutch painting in the United
States. Whether it is Hendrick Avercamp's festive scene of skaters on a frozen canal, Clara
Peeters's exquisite still life, or Pieter Jansz. Saenredam's meditative interior of the Sint-Mariakerk
in Utrecht, the paintings in the Carter collection also offer a personal reflection of the collectors
and their tastes. The catalogue is a deep, scholarly consideration of an extraordinary group
of paintings from the history of art and a marker of the importance of the public that both
institution and donors have long committed to serve.

Michael Govan

CEO and Wallis Annenberg Director, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

T his book celebrates Edward and Hannah Carter, who during the late twentieth
century assembled one of the most admired and refined private collections
of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. The Carters' decision in the late 1960s to
bequeath their collection to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art attests to their
strong dedication to the museum they helped found and to Los Angeles and future genera¬
tions of museum visitors. For their commitment and generosity, we are tremendously grateful.

I first met Mr. and Mrs. Carter when I was a young graduate student working in the
Department of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Handsome
and elegant, they had just returned from Europe with a painting they were placing on
temporary loan to the museum. Little did I know then that I would eventually move to Los
Angeles, where many times I enjoyed the hospitality of the Carters, who warmly welcomed
me and visiting scholars, collectors, and students into their home. It was my good fortune to
be curator of European paintings at LACMA when their collection came to the museum.

It has been a great honor and personal delight to write about the collection for a new catalogue
to appear almost forty years after the publication of The Mirror of 'Nature, by my mentor, John
Walsh, and Cynthia Schneider. That catalogue accompanied the enthusiastically reviewed
exhibition of the Carter collection that traveled from LACMA to the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Many people and institutions have provided support and assistance in the completion of
this book as it morphed through different formats to its final form. My thanks go first to
the extended family of Hannah and Edward Carter, for their loving concern and interest in
the collection, the donation of which they supported: Edward Carter's children, William B.
Carter and Ulla; and the late Ann Carter Huneke; and Hannah Carter's children, Hannah
“Haydi" C. Sowerwine and David; James E. Caldwell, Jr., and Philipa; Julie C. Tave and Alain;
Anne Caldwell; and Jonathan Caldwell and Christine.

Initial funding for cataloguing the northern European paintings at LACMA was pro¬
vided by a generous publication grant by the Getty Grant Program (now known as the Getty
Foundation). The gift of the Carter collection prompted the decision to jettison the first idea—
one book for all European paintings—and to divide the entries between separate publications,
one for the Carter collection and one for the Ahmanson collection. An important addition to
the Getty grant came from the Netherlands American Foundation. For his nomination for this
grant I thank Matthew Le Clerc, the drawings collector and descendant of Haarlem burghers
portrayed by Frans Hals. Stephanie Dyas and other members of the Development Department
helped to secure and administer the grants.

At LACMA I am grateful for the support of Michael Govan, CEO and Wallis Annenberg
Director; Nancy Thomas, Deputy Director of Art Administration and Collections, who oversaw
the original project; and Leah Lehmbeck, Curator and Department Head, European Painting
and Sculpture, and American Art, who managed the final stages of publication.

My greatest gratitude goes to my former colleagues in the Department of European
Painting and Sculpture, especially J. Patrice Marandel, Curator Emeritus, for his confidence
and support over many years and projects. His broad knowledge, experience, and connections
are matched only by his great skills as a chef and host. It is a true privilege to have been
his colleague and to be his friend. A very important part of the success of the Department of
European Painting and Sculpture is due to Melissa Pope, Senior Curatorial Administrator.
Smart, incredibly well organized, and great fun, Melissa took on many of the administrative

needs of this project, including coordinating the movement of paintings within the museum
and for loans. Diva Zumaya, Annenberg Fellow, Department of European Painting and
Sculpture, has provided excellent support in the final stages of the project.

For her attention to detail and her patience, I am enormously grateful to Kathleen Luhrs,
who applied her years of experience editing catalogues for the Metropolitan Museum of Art
and Morgan Library & Museum to the curatorial entries and often complicated conservation
entries in this book. Our proofreader, Fronia W. Simpson, applied her exceptional skills to
the final phase of this multiyear project to assure consistency throughout. Lisa Mark, Head of
Publications at LACMA, and her staff have skillfully seen the book through to publication
with the excellent help of Piper Severance. Carly Ann Rustebakke did a Herculean task of
tracking down and securing the rights and images for the many related works. Peter Brenner
and Steve Oliver in Photo Services provided beautiful new digital photography of the paint¬
ings in the Carter collection.

The focused character of the Carter collection provided an opportunity to study the
technical aspects of the paintings with Joseph Fronek, Senior Conservator of Paintings,

Elma O'Donoghue, Conservator of Paintings, and former Conservation Scientists Charlotte
Eng and the late Frank Preusser. Elma invented a clever camera stand to capture the infrared
reflectography (IRR) images of paintings that Yosi Poseilov, Senior Photographer, Conservation,
skillfully "wove” together into composite images. Other members of the Conservation
Department, especially Virginia Rasmussen, Conservator, Paintings, and Silviu Boariu,
Associate Conservator, Objects, added support and valuable input. Mark Gilberg, former Head
of Conservation, oversaw the project, and Christel Quinn provided administrative support.
Paul McKinney and Mario Lopez, under the direction of retired Head of Preparation, Jeff
Haskin, facilitated the movement of the paintings between the galleries, conservation studio,
and photo studio. My thanks to everyone for making the collaborative experience so reward¬
ing, both intellectually and personally.

Research was greatly facilitated by the resources and people at numerous libraries. At
LACMA, where The Ahmanson Foundation has for many years generously supported the
library's acquisition of books, catalogues, and journals on European paintings and sculpture,
making it a remarkably strong resource, I was aided by the cheerful and efficient assistance of
the staff, especially Doug Cordel and Kristi Yuzuki, and former Program Specialist Tracy Kerr.

I also greatly benefited from the rich resources of the Getty Research Institute (GRI).

The collection of rare and recently published books, journals, sale and exhibition catalogues,
and dealer archives, including those of Thos. Agnew, G. Cramer, Schaefer Galleries, Knoedler,
and Duveen, and the extensive Collectors Files, were incredibly valuable. The staff of the GRI
is without exception skilled, knowledgeable, and helpful. I am particularly grateful to the
circulations staff, the staff of the Special Collections Reading Room, Provenance and History
of Collecting, and the reference librarians, who have cheerfully provided guidance and
assistance. Burton Fredericksen, retired Head of Provenance and History of Collecting, who
planted the seed of what became the GRI and introduced the databases of sales, inventories,
and public collections, deserves special recognition for his contributions to the resources of
the GRI that have provided such a wealth of documentation for my research and that of others.

Farther afield, I am grateful for the resources and staff of the Frick Art Reference Library,
Avery Library and Special Collections of Columbia University, Watson Library and the Museum
Archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague,
the Nationaal Archief, The Hague, and especially the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor

Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, where over the years I have enjoyed the friendship and
benefited from the knowledge of many colleagues, past and present, including Sabine
Craft-Giepmans, Charles Dumas, Michiel Franken, Marijke de Kinkelder, Suzanne Laemers,
Fred Meijers, and Laurens Schoemaker.

Many colleagues, scholars, dealers, students, docents, and visitors old and young have
contributed to my knowledge through their publications, lectures, conversations, and insights.
On more than one occasion I have been humbled by the observations of a child. There is,

I have learned, much to know and always new ways of understanding the art of the past from
different perspectives.

I am grateful to all those who have inspired and informed me, including George Abrams,
Gail Aronow, Katharine Baetjer, David Bomford, Christopher Brown, Edwin Buijsen, Quentin
Buvelot, Fiona Carlin, Alan Chong, Elisabeth Donaghue, Frederik J. Duparc, Charles Dumas,
Claudia Einecke, Paul Fields, Jeroen Giltaij, Emilie Gordenker, Liesbeth M. Helmus, Mark
Henderson, Catherine Hess, Derek Johns, Casie Kesterson, the late Roz Leader, Matthew Le
Clerc, Ad Leerintveld, the late Walter Liedtke, Bob Ling, Sally McKay, Norbert Middlekoop,
David Miller, James Mitchell, Tom van der Molen, Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo, Sander
Parlberg, Ruud Priem, Peter Roeloffs, the late Mary Jane Rothe, Laurens Schoemaker, Gary
Schwartz, Jan Six, Leonore van Sloten, Eric Jan Sluiter, Nicolette Sluiter-Seijfert, Anthony
Speelman, Elisabeth Spits, Adriane van Suchtelen, Peter Sutton, Carol Togneri, Jane Turner,
Diana Veach, Gerdien Verschoor, Christiaan Vogelaar, John Walsh, Arthur Wheelock, Lois
White, Jeannine Wiest, John Willenbecher, Gloria Williams, and Ann Woolett.

In addition to sharing professional correspondence and conversation, I have had the
great pleasure of becoming friends with many of my colleagues, with whom I have shared
meals and wonderful times. Among them are a special group who have welcomed me as
a guest in their homes, given me a room and shared meals and their beloved cats with me. For
their warm hospitality and kindness making me feel at home so many miles away from
California, with a grateful heart I thank Norbert Middelkoop and Leonore van Sloten, and the
notorious Lulu; Eric Jan and Nicolette Sluiter, and the late Mievis and Sophiekje; Gary and
Loekie Schwartz and their chickens; and Cynthia van Bogendorf-Ruprath, her dogs, and now
grown children Eric Jan and Caroline. On various research trips and related events in Boston
and New York, I have had the pleasure of staying with old friends Margaret McNally
and Jonathan Wacks in both Cambridge and New York; Amy Golahny in her family home in
Boston; and Margaret Lawson in an apartment with a glorious view of the Hudson River.
Thank you all for the warm beds and meals, but especially for your friendship and good cheer.

Finally, but by no means least, I thank my family for their contributions to the success
and completion of this book. My sister and brother-in-law, Jane Walsh-Brown and Jim Brown,
incredibly accomplished in their own fields, are an inspiration both professionally and
personally and always a joy to be with. To my daughter, Kate, who as a child once accompanied
me and Edwin Buijsen to the Carters' house and is now a very successful professional, thank
you for your loving support and patience. I never cease to be impressed by your wise insights
into paintings and people. Most of all, I am grateful to you for including me so fully in the
lives of your family, your wonderful, clever husband, Peter, and sons, Alexander and Theodore
Scudese. Not to be forgotten, I acknowledge the important part played by my cats, Sebastian
and the late Stella, who are ever present, sitting on my notes and keypad.

This book is dedicated to Mr. and Mrs. Carter and their many contributions to LACMA,
Los Angeles, and the State of California. May their example inspire future generations.

Amy L. Walsh

An Unerring Eye

Amy L. Walsh nvisioned from its inception as a gift to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Jj (LACMA), the collection of thirty-six seventeenth-century Dutch paintings
M " assembled by Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter over a period of approximately
twenty-five years came to the museum in 2009 following the death of Hannah
Carter. The landscapes, still lifes, seascapes, cityscapes, and church interiors that are the focus
of the collection are widely praised for their exceptional quality and condition. The gift stands
as a memorial to an astute businessman and dedicated civic leader who made a unique contri¬
bution to the economic, cultural, and educational development of Los Angeles, and especially
to the museum he helped build and led as the first president of its board of trustees.

Edward Carter was born in Cumberland, Maryland, in 1911 and at the age of nine moved
to Los Angeles with his mother and sister following the death of his father. He held his first
job, as a printer's apprentice, when he was ten. While earning high grades at Hollywood High
School and then at the University of California at Los Angeles, Carter worked in the tailoring
room of Sherwood's, a men's clothing store on Wilshire Boulevard, and later as a salesman,
having learned, he said, "it was the salesmen who made the most money." Working only part
time, he became Sherwood's most successful salesman, responsible for no less than 25 percent
of sales. Carter graduated from UCLA in 1932 with a degree in philosophy and economics.

He continued to work at Sherwood's for the next few years to support his young family (his
wife Christine Dailey Carter and the first of two children) and save enough to go to business
school. At Harvard Business School he earned top honors and a scholarship in his first year.
Graduating first in his class in 1937, he was offered a position there as professor of retailing.
He chose instead to return to Los Angeles, where he went to work for the May Company
department store as a merchandising manager. In 1946 he accepted an offer to join the Broadway
department store, which awarded him profit sharing and stock options. Only a year later,
at age thirty-five, he was named Broadway's chief executive officer. Carter revolutionized the
department store industry by modernizing the company's stores and moving them into
the suburbs. One of the first to see the potential of shopping malls and stores located in the
expanding suburban neighborhoods, he used the map of Los Angeles's proposed freeway
system to determine where to locate new stores.

In 1950, with Carter's leadership, the Broadway merged with Hale Brothers Stores,
a San Francisco-based retail chain, becoming Broadway-Hale. By 1959, through mergers and
acquisitions, the company had grown from three stores with aggregate sales of about $30
million to fifteen stores with sales approximating $175 million. In 1972, when Carter became
chairman of Broadway-Hale after making Philip M. Hawley chief executive, the com¬
pany operated fifty-four department stores under multiple names, including the Broadway,
Emporium, Capwell's, and Weinstock's in California, Arizona, and Nevada; Bergdorf

Goodman in New York; Neiman Marcus; Waldenbooks; and Sunset House, a mail order
business. In 1975 the corporation, renamed Carter, Hawley, Hale, acquired 20 percent
of the House of Fraser, which operated the famous London retailer Harrod's as well as its
affiliates throughout Great Britain and the Continent.

By 1950, the year he successfully merged the Broadway with Hale Brothers, Carter, not
yet forty but already a millionaire, took on new challenges as a civic leader in cultural and
educational affairs, as well as in business. Carter said he visited museums as a youth because
he wanted to, but he credited Harry C. James, leader of a local boys' club, with introducing
him at the age of ten to the symphony and opera. A member of the board of the Southern
California Symphony Association, sponsor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra since
1947, Carter became the symphony's vice president in 1950 and its president in 1955. He would
also serve as a member and president of the board of the Los Angeles Opera, a trustee of
Occidental College and Stanford University, and a board member of numerous businesses
and other cultural and educational institutions. In 1952 Governor Earl Warren appointed
Carter a regent of the University of California, a post he held for thirty-six years, including
during the turbulent 1960s, when he served as president of the Board of Regents.

Edward Carter began collecting paintings modestly and without any clear idea of build¬
ing a collection. Prentiss Hale (1910-1996), president of Hale Brothers and Carter's business
partner who lived in San Francisco, introduced him to the New York paintings dealer and
president of Kleinberger & Company, Harry Sperling (1906-1971), who in 1956 sold Carter his
first picture, a river landscape attributed to Jan van Goyen. In his speech at the opening of
the exhibition of his collection at LACMA in 1981, Carter recalled his excitement when his first
painting was delivered to his house in 1956 and Howard Ahmanson (1906-1968) walked across
the street to help uncrate and examine it. "That event," Carter suggested, "undoubtedly
kindled [Ahmanson's] interest in collecting and ultimately resulted in his becoming this
museum's largest benefactor."

Although the attribution to Van Goyen would later be rejected and the painting sold,
Sperling, who advised and sometimes partnered with Hale in acquiring paintings, would play
an important role in establishing Carter as a collector. With Hale's encouragement, often
informing him of Carter's travels, Sperling began to correspond with Carter, offering him
Dutch and, later, French paintings. In 1957 Carter purchased from Kleinberger's a mountain
landscape by Jacob van Ruisdael. The following year Sperling offered him Interior of the Jesuit
Church with Paintings by Rubens by Gonzales Coques and Wilhelm von Ehrenberg. Neither
painting remained in the collection as Carter refined his taste and the quality of his holdings.
The first painting to become a permanent part of the collection was by one of Carter's favorite
artists, Willem van de Velde the Younger, A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm, which he purchased
from Sperling in 1959.

Correspondence between Carter and Sperling covering the years 1957 through 1968
reveals that Carter looked to the dealer for advice about paintings he had seen elsewhere
and that Sperling also facilitated his donation of paintings to institutions with which Carter
seems to have had no direct connections. Typically, Sperling would suggest to Carter that
he donate funds to an institution so that it could acquire a painting already on loan there from
the dealer. In 1958 the beneficiaries of Carter's gifts, sometimes paralleling those made by
Prentiss Hale at Sperling's suggestion, were Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts;
Wells College in Aurora, New York; and the California Palace of the Legion of Honor in San
Francisco. The gifts were often anonymous and made with the transfer of stock rather than
cash. In 1959 Carter arranged through Sperling to give the Metropolitan Museum of Art
in New York Judith with the Head ofHolofernes, a large painting by the seventeenth-century

Neapolitan painter Massimo Stanzione (1585-1656); the painting was delivered directly from
Kleinberger & Company to the Metropolitan Museum. In 1964 Carter donated one thousand
shares of Broadway-Hale stock to the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, and in 1967
he donated stock to Vassar College specifically to purchase paintings from Kleinberger's.

These individual donations undoubtedly initiated Carter's interest in ultimately becoming
one of LACMA's most generous donors of works of art.

In the late 1950s a group of trustees of the Los Angeles County Museum of History,
Science, and Art who were interested in art, including Edward Carter, developed a plan to
create an art museum that would be separate from the multifaceted county facility in
Exposition Park. In 1957 Richard Brown, curator of art at the Los Angeles County Museum
and later the first director of the art museum, and the industrialist Norton Simon approached
Carter about leading the campaign to raise private funds for the new museum. Carter agreed,
but only if the county board of supervisors met several conditions of partnership: (1) make
a county-owned property available; (2) underwrite the annual operating expenses of the museum;
and (3) vest the management of the museum and its private grants in a self-perpetuating
board independent of public agencies. In 1961 the Los Angeles County Museum of Art formally
separated from the Museum of History and Science. The new museum was to be built in
Hancock Park, county-owned land just east of Beverly Hills. An article by Art Seidenbaum,
published on 28 March 1965 in the Los Angeles Times on the occasion of the opening of the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, noted: "It is said that more than any of the men and women
who put money and time into the new museum, Edward Carter made it happen. Carter picked
and won the site, $8,000,000 worth of land, he realized his demand that the county agree to
underwriting expenses and he became president of the self-perpetuating board that he created."

Carter turned to his friends and business contacts. The first major gift to the art museum
was $2 million from the financier Howard Ahmanson, president of Home Savings. The
Ahmanson Foundation established after Ahmanson's death remains the major supporter of
the European Painting and Sculpture Department at LACMA. The Bing Fund and Norton
Simon each pledged $1 million, and the Lytton Foundation, $750,000. Other donations, inclu¬
ding those from the Carters and the heirs of William Randolph Hearst, went to the naming
of galleries in the new museum. A total of $12 million was raised. "Remarkable, by itself," the
Los Angeles Times reported, "historic, when one considers that Carter and his team were able
to raise that amount at the same time that others in the city were soliciting money for the
Music Center in downtown Los Angeles, which opened within four months of the museum."

As he had foreseen the need for building shopping centers in the suburbs. Carter recognized
the need and desire of the growing population of Southern California for culture.

In 1963 Edward Carter married Hannah Locke Caldwell in Atherton, California. It was
the second marriage for both. Hannah Locke was born in Morristown, New Jersey, in 1914.

A Quaker, she often referred to people as "thee" and "thou." At age eight she moved with her
family to Europe, where she attended school in Paris and Switzerland. After five or six years,
the family relocated to Philadelphia, and Hannah, then a teenager, went to boarding school in
Connecticut. In 1936, several years after graduating from high school, she joined the United
States' first women's Olympic ski team, but with the outbreak of World War II the 1940
Olympics were canceled. Hannah Locke Carter was enrolled in the National Ski Hall of Fame
in 1973 and remained active in the Olympic movement, serving on the board of the Los
Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee in 1984. Her first taste of California came during
World War II, when her first husband, Emott Caldwell, was in the Naval Air Force and
assigned to the Pacific. The couple moved back to Philadelphia after the war and raised their
five children there before moving to Northern California in 1950.

Hannah Carter, who would play an important role in the building of the Carter collection,
grew up with family portraits by the American painter Chester Harding (1792-1866) and Thomas
Hicks (1823-1890), a relative of hers and the nephew of the painter Edward Hicks (1780-1849).
While at boarding school in Europe and Connecticut, she studied art history. She spoke fondly
of a wonderful teacher at her school in Connecticut who taught art history and took students
on trips to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Frick Collection in New York. “I liked all
of them, the French. I studied the Italians earlier—early Italians. Corot appealed to me a great
deal as a young girl.” When asked by an interviewer why she liked works by Corot, she
responded: "It's a sort of conservative painting. And you can recognize what's in it... it's soft.
Maybe it's a little feminine... as a young girl, I just thought Corot was the most marvelous
kind of painting.'' 1

The first painting that the couple bought after they were married was a Corot, in 1964.
Hannah Carter recalled, "Mr. Carter was so generous. He said, Tf you've always wanted a Corot
you're going to have to get one.' So that was very exciting.'' Sperling, whom she described as
"a wonderful man... very interested in us,'' had seen the Corot in the preview of an auction in
London and contacted the Carters, who were then in Paris. It was one of the few paintings
they bought sight unseen. After the removal of the dirty varnish that had covered the painting
when it went to auction, they were delighted with the acquisition. Hannah was especially
pleased when she realized it had belonged to Louis Hill, the grandfather of one of her very
close friends. The Carters enjoyed the Corot painting for twenty years before selling it to
acquire a Dutch painting they wanted. Years later Hannah lamented that the dealer to whom
they had sold it would not divulge the name of the Japanese buyer so that they could have
visited the painting in his collection.

The Carters did not originally specialize in seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. They
also acquired a number of French paintings—at one point, among others, they owned two
Corots, a Courbet, and a large seascape by Eugene Boudin, as well as View of the Grand Canal by
Francesco Guardi, acquired from Newhouse Galleries in 1973. A beautiful late Corot and
a flower-and-fruit still life by Henri Fantin-Latour that they purchased from Eugene Thaw in
1977 remained in the collection until Mrs. Carter's death. As she noted about these acquisitions,
"They were paintings that we liked and could afford, and we had pleasure out of looking at
[them].'' Looking back to their decision to focus on Dutch paintings, Edward Carter recalled,
"The two fields that I liked best were... French Impressionists and the Dutch seventeenth-
century landscapes. By that time the price of Impressionists and their availability, the prices
were very high. And... the prices of Dutch, as yet, were not very high— There wasn't much
demand at the time. I thought I could have a finer quality and more comprehensive collection
with Dutch. And I also like Dutch a little bit better of the two.''

Edward Carter later explained that the decision to form a serious collection came shortly
after the founding of LACMA, in 1965: "I decided that I would undertake to put together
a collection of my own, with the hope that beyond my wife's and my life that it would become
a separate collection within the museum. And we hoped to be able to leave the paintings to
the museum.... Very early I decided that I would buy only the very finest of quality. And then
limit the size of the collection... my purpose was to have the major artists represented in the
collection and to keep the quality extremely high.'' By focusing narrowly. Carter said, "the
collection would better represent that whole segment.... First, I could learn more about the
narrower field. And second, the quality of, and the comprehensiveness of the collecting
in the narrower field would be enhanced.'' To this end the Carters visited exhibitions and
permanent collections in public museums, and they met dealers who introduced them to
private collectors, curators, and academics.

The Carters bought slowly and cautiously at first, gradually expanding their contacts
with dealers, scholars, and curators. In 1962, before his marriage to Hannah, Edward had
purchased Meindert Hobbema's Landscape with a Footbridge from the New York gallery Rosenberg
and Stiebel. An indication of his inexperience as a collector. Carter talked the dealer into
selling him only one of the pair of small landscapes. It would be eleven years before he was
able to correct his mistake and buy the companion painting. Landscape with Anglers and a Distant
Town, which had been sold in the interim to the Dutch collector Sydney van den Bergh (1898-
1977) through the dealer Hans Cramer in The Hague. In 1967, the same year that he donated
stock anonymously to Vassar College to purchase paintings from Sperling, Carter bought
for himself A Calm Sea near Dordrecht by Aelbert Cuyp from another New York dealer, Frederick
Mont. The following year Carter acquired Emanuel de Witte's Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam
from Newhouse Galleries, New York, which often worked closely with Mont, who in 1970
sold the Carters View of Grainfields with a Distant Town by Jacob van Ruisdael. 2

As the Carters' interest and confidence in collecting Dutch paintings increased, they began
to attract the attention of scholars, collectors, and dealers. Among their first advisers was Ben
Johnson (1938-1990), a young, gifted painting conservator who established the Conservation
Center at LACMA in 1967 with support from Edward Carter and Howard Ahmanson. It
was the first conservation laboratory on the West Coast. Johnson and Kenneth Donahue (1915-
1985), a scholar of seventeenth-century art who had succeeded Richard Brown as director
of the museum in 1966, shared the responsibilities of curator of paintings and were in contact
with dealers seeking to connect with collectors in Los Angeles. In addition to Edward Carter,
the major collectors of European paintings were Norton Simon and Armand Hammer.

In February 1970 the Dutch dealer Cramer wrote to Donahue asking if a winter scene
by Jan van de Cappelle, which had been refused by Simon, might interest Carter or Hammer. 3
On 3 April Barbara Roberts, who was working for Simon, wrote to Cramer declining the
purchase of a Pieter Claesz. for Simon, who was running for the United States Senate, but
suggested in a handwritten note that Carter might be a potential buyer. 4 On 9 April Cramer
wrote to Carter to offer him the still-life painting by Claesz. and concluded, “It would be
a pleasure for me to come into contact with you, as I have been told that you have one of the
finest collections of Dutch paintings in the United States." 5 Carter thanked Cramer for send¬
ing him the reproduction of the Claesz., noting, “I like it but not enough to buy. My special
interest lies in Seventeenth Century Dutch landscapes and I should be very pleased to hear
from you about any that come to your attention." 6 Later, when asked by an interviewer why
he chose landscape and, subsequently, still life. Carter replied, “They just appealed to me."

On 26 June 1970 Cramer, apparently testing the level of Carter's interest, wrote that
he had recently acquired “an extreme [sic] fine small seascape by Reiner Nooms called Zeeman
and a very Van Goyen-like landscape by Jacob van Mosscher. If you like, I can send you
fotographs [sic]. Also I may offer from Dutch private property, an unusually important Van
Goyen, falling in the price of $70,000 .1 will be pleased to give details soon, if you wish." 7
Carter replied three days later indicating his interest in the “unusually important Van Goyen." 8
Carter's mention of the best painting undoubtedly impressed Cramer that he was a serious
collector. By 31 August, however, Cramer, having heard nothing from Carter or Donahue about
the painting, wrote to Darryl Isley at the Norton Simon Foundation to offer Mr. Simon the
Van Goyen. 9

In 1971 the Carters purchased their first painting from the dealer David Koetser (London
and Zurich). The painting. Ships in a Calm by Jan van de Cappelle, a particularly fine work,
was their second seascape, joining A Yacht and OtherVessels in a Calm by Willem van de Velde the
Younger, which the Carters had acquired in 1959 from Sperling.

The Carters' serious collecting began in 1971. In March of that year, Donahue, director of
LACMA, wrote to Cramer, "Would you please send a photograph of the Adriaen van de Velde
Flat Panorama Landscape if it has not been sold. Dr. De Vries thought Mr. Carter might be
interested in the picture." 10 In 1981 Ary Bob de Vries (1905-1983), who had retired as director of
the Mauritshuis in The Hague in 1970, recalled that he and the Carters "first had the chance
of closer acquaintance during a prolonged stay in California some ten years ago," probably the
winter of 1970-71. Even though at that time the Carters' collection was small, De Vries
considered Carter "a genuine collector and a real friend." 11 Carter always credited Bob de Vries
with being one of his most important advisers in assembling his collection.

In 1971, following the advice of De Vries, the Carters purchased Panoramic Landscape near
Rhenen with theHuis terLede, which De Vries and Professor Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann
agreed was more likely a work by Anthonie van Borssom, an attribution later confirmed by the
discovery of a signature. In the same year, the Carters also acquired Jan van der Heyden's
The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLiliegracht. The Van der Heyden was the first of four
important paintings they would buy through Cramer from the collection of Sidney van den
Bergh. The head of Unilever, Van den Bergh, who lived in Wassenaar, a wealthy suburb of The
Hague, had built a much admired collection of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings after
the war. De Vries knew the collection well; he had advised the collector and published an article
in 1964, followed by a book about the collection in 1968. 12

It is unclear exactly how the Carters were introduced to Van den Bergh. Undoubtedly
the Dutch collector had heard from more than one person about the Los Angeles couple who
was interested in buying important Dutch paintings. In addition to De Vries, Cramer was
closely associated with the collector. In a peevish letter written to Carter on 14 October 1981,
however, the New York collector Frits Markus (1909-1996) was upset about an article in
the New York Daily News referring to a dinner given by LACMA in the Carters' honor at the
time of the opening of their exhibition, A Mirror of Nature:

What struck me was the statement that Mr. Newhouse of New York's Newhouse Galleries
was instrumental in your acquiring the greater part of your collection. Looking through
my files, and searching my memory, I believe that amongst other things, I have been
instrumental in bringing you together with my wife's uncle, Sidney van den Bergh, with

the object of your acquiring the cream of his collection—in which you succeeded_

I also accommodated these transactions by introducing you to Mr. Cramer as I never
wanted to do it as a dealer, and Mr. Cramer accommodated both parties for 5%. It is also my
recollection that I often counseled you in selecting Dutch Paintings—very much so in
the case of the Van den Bergh paintings.... It isn't that I want any credit for it, but I was
amused by the article. 13

On 29 October Carter replied to Markus:

You were indeed the one responsible for putting me in touch with Sidney van den Bergh
whose wonderful Avercamp and Van der Heyden really inaugurated our serious collecting.
... Moreover you were later nice enough to arrange for me to buy the Dirk de Bray and
one of the Hobbemas. Finally, you introduced us to Hans Cramer, who was the middle
man in these transactions and subsequently furnished us several other paintings. So
we are deeply indebted to you for both your direct and indirect assistance and wish to
express our gratitude. It is also true that the Newhouses, sometimes in partnership
with the Monts, sold us eight of the thirty-one pictures in the Dutch collection as well as
a Guardi and Corot, which we still own. 14

Although the exact circumstances of how Carter came to know Cramer and Van den
Bergh are unclear, in a letter dated 11 October 1971 Carter, who had already agreed to purchase
the Van der Heyden but had decided against the Van de Cappelle that Cramer had sent him
on approval in September 1971, wrote to Cramer that he was eager to meet Van den Bergh in
December, when he and his wife were planning to be in Holland. "Without the benefit of
seeing the pictures that you might have available, our interest continues to center on the van
der Neer, the van Anraadt, and the de Bray” 15 On 5 November Cramer wrote to Van den Bergh
that Carter was delighted with the catalogue of the Dutchman's collection that Cramer had
sent him and desired to visit the collection in person, noting that he knows it is not yet for sale
but that his first choice is the Avercamp. Three days later the meeting was set. On 8 November
Cramer wrote to Carter "to confirm that Mr. van den Bergh will be very pleased to meet you on
December 11th.... He also expressed the wish to meet you personally.” 16 The collectors finally
met on 11 December 1971. Van den Bergh, whose wife had died the previous August, had
just celebrated his seventy-third birthday and returned from China, where he had gone as
head of a trade mission.

Although he had not fully decided to sell the paintings, in September 1971 Van den Bergh
had asked Cramer to update the appraisals he had made of his collection on 30 May 1969.
Carter was not alone in seeking out Van den Bergh, who was only rumored to be selling his
paintings. On 5 June 1970 Cramer had written to Van den Bergh that the New York still-
life collector John Lowenthal and his wife, Anne, a scholar of seventeenth-century Dutch
painting, had asked to meet the Dutch collector and see his collection.

In a letter of 15 October 1971 Cramer informed Carter that Van den Bergh's still lifes by
Van Anraadt and Dirck de Bray were "more or less promised to the Mauritshuis,” and that
the high price recently paid at auction for a Salomon van Ruysdael "makes every transaction
a little bit more complicated.” 17 After considerable negotiations, ultimately the Still Life with
StoneJugandPipes, a unique work by Pieter van Anraadt, went to the Mauri tshuis, opening
the way in 1973 for the Carters to buy and export the beautiful Flowers in a Glass Vase by Dirck
de Bray for their collection. 18

The prize of the Van den Bergh collection was undeniably Hendrick Avercamp's much
coveted Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal In his letter to Van den Bergh dated 5 November 1971,
Cramer mentioned that although Carter knew it was not yet for sale, his first choice from the
collection was the Avercamp. Later, when asked by an interviewer about the painting. Carter
remarked that the painting had "a great aesthetic appeal to me; represents the life of the
seventeenth century; gives you a feeling of what life was like at the time; some are businessmen,
some old, some young, some Bohemian, some more traditional; I also like the composition,
the color, the brightness, the sky.” He succeeded in buying the beautiful winter landscape
filled with anecdotal detail in 1972, soon after the couple's visit to Van den Bergh. The Avercamp,
which hung over the fireplace in the Carters' study, was the favorite painting of Hannah Carter,
the Olympic skier.

The successful acquisition of the Van der Heyden and the Avercamp, both universally
admired for their exceptional quality and state of preservation, established the Carters as major
collectors and gave Edward Carter the reputation of having an "unerring eye” for pictures.
With new confidence and the advice of experts in the field, they accelerated the pace of their
acquisitions and reconsidered previous purchases that were often sold or traded. Ben Johnson,
LACMA's conservator of paintings, often traveled with them to advise about condition and
quality. For advice they also reached out to leading connoisseurs of seventeenth-century Dutch
painting—Bob de Vries, Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, Seymour Slive, Horst Gerson, Otto
Whitman, and especially Wolfgang Stechow, whose recently published book on Dutch land¬
scape painting Hannah Carter described as "the Bible for anyone who's collecting 17th-century
Dutch paintings.” Over the years, the Carters developed not only professional relationships
but also true friendships with the many scholars, curators, and dealers whom they met and
from whom they learned about Dutch paintings. "We're friends,” Hannah Carter said, "we're
friends with all of them.”

In 1972 they also began a relationship with the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the
young curator of Dutch paintings there, John Walsh. Edward Carter later noted Walsh,
who with his wife, Jill, would become great friends of the Carters, "[has] always been willing
to share his point of view on paintings with me, very useful and enjoyable” It was not uncom¬
mon during the 1970s for the Carters to arrive at the offices of the Department of European
Paintings at the Metropolitan with their newest acquisition, which they had arranged to loan
to the museum for three months. In 1959 Carter had given the Stanzione to the Metropolitan
through Sperling and in December 1969 had donated stock to the museum for its Centennial
Campaign, but he had no real personal involvement with the Metropolitan until 1972.

The initial contact with the museum came through Donahue, director of LACMA, who wrote
to Theodore Rousseau, formerly head of the European Paintings Department who was then
deputy director/chief curator under the director, Thomas Hoving. Donahue offered the loan
of the Carters' newly acquired painting by Avercamp. Between 1972 and 1985 the Carters lent
the Metropolitan Museum sixteen paintings, each for a period of three months. 19

Cramer, who worked primarily on consignment after 1970, continued to be an important
source of paintings for the Carters. In 1973 he negotiated the acquisition from the Van den
Bergh collection of Dirck de Bray's Flowers in a Glass Vase and Meindert Hobbema's Landscape
with Anglers and a Distant Town, completing the pair that Carter had broken up when he
purchased only Landscape with Footbridge from Rosenberg and Stiebel in 1962. Cramer also sold
the Carters Willem van de Velde's Beach with FishingBoats Pulled Up on Shore and Ambrosius
Bosschaert's Still Life of Flowers , formerly in the William Middendorf collection. In 1976 Cramer
purchased Adriaen van de Velde's The Beach atScheveningen at auction in London for the Carters,
in 1978 he sold them Still Life with Tobacco, Beer ; and Wine by Willem Claesz. Heda, and the follow¬
ing year, Jan van Goyen's View of Dordrecht.

The Carters were often in London during the 1970s, especially after 1974, when Broadway-
Hale acquired part ownership of Harrod's. As a board member of the company. Carter was
in London once a month for meetings, which allowed him to become more familiar with the
London art market. In 1973 he purchased Salomon van Ruysdael's River Landscape with a Ferry
from Edward Speelman, the London private picture dealer who built the highly regarded
collection of Dutch and Flemish paintings for the British real estate developer and entrepreneur
Harold Samuel (1912-1987). During one of their trips to London, Speelman took the Carters
to meet Samuel and visit the collection, which he ultimately bequeathed to the City of London.
On another trip to London, in 1977, the Carters purchased from the Brod Gallery Pieter Jansz.
Saenredam's Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht, one of their most important acquisitions.

The New York dealer Clyde Newhouse (1920-1986), often in silent partnership with
Frederick Mont, sold the Carters many of their most interesting and important paintings
during the mid- to late 1970s. In 1973 Newhouse sold the Carters Francesco Guardi's Venice,
a View on the Grand Canal and the next year. Wild Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl by Adriaen Coorte
and Adam Pynacker's View of a Harbor in Schiedam. Also in 1974 the Carters acquired from
Newhouse Jan van Huysum's Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, an incredibly beautiful and immacu¬
lately preserved early eighteenth-century painting with a stellar provenance. Years later
Hannah Carter admitted to an interviewer that although the painting had grown on her over
the years and she admired it, she had at first hesitated: "I knew it was a wonderful painting...
[but] it was not me... I'm a sort of a plain person. And it was a little too Baroque.'' In 1976 the
Carters purchased from Newhouse and the Dutch dealer Robert Noortman a more typical
Carter painting, Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde's TheNieuwezijds Voorburgwalwith the Flower and
Tree Markets in Amsterdam.

The Carters' most important purchase in 1976, however, was Ambrosius Bosschaert
the Elder's jewel-like Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge, which also came from Newhouse and replaced
Bosschaert's Still Life with Flowers, which they had purchased from Cramer in 1973 and sold
after acquiring the new work. Two more purchases followed in 1978, when the Carters bought
the moody Panoramic Landscape with a Village by Philips Koninck and their second painting
by Emanuel de Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent from
Newhouse. A painting by Nicolaes Berchem, Landscape with Herdsmen Gathering Sticks, which
they purchased from Newhouse in 1980, they later sold, but the others remain in the collection.

The dealer David Koetser became important to the Carters in the 1970s. He had sold them
Ships in a Calm by Van de Cappelle in 1971, Frozen River with a Footbridge by Aert van der Neer in
1976, Frans Post's Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House the following year, and the large View
of a Beach by Simon de Vlieger in 1981.

The Carters were clearly on the mind of every dealer who had Dutch paintings to offer.
During the late 1970s, new names appeared, especially Saam Nystad in The Hague. In 1977,
with the advice of John Walsh, who had written his dissertation on Jan Porcellis, the Carters
purchased from Nystad Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, an early tonal seascape by the artist.

A landscape by Van Goyen that the Carters bought in the same year from Nystad they sold three
years later as they continued to refine their taste and collection. In 1979 Nystad sold the
Carters Landscape with a Draftsman by the influential Italianate Dutch painter Jan Dirksz. Both
and two years later, the early winter landscape painted on paper and mounted on panel by
Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River.

In the late 1970s the Carters began to think about the possibility of an exhibition of their
collection at LACMA, where they had often publicly expressed their intention to donate
the paintings. It was decided that the exhibition would begin in Los Angeles and travel to the
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, where Walsh was then curator of European paintings, and
on to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where so many of their paintings had been lent on
a short-term basis. They asked Walsh to write a catalogue of the collection for the exhibition.

To assist him, he enlisted Cynthia Schneider, a graduate student at Harvard who later taught
at Georgetown University and served as American ambassador to the Netherlands.

A Mirror of Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection ofMr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
officially opened at LACMA on 13 October 1981 and ran until just after New Year's Day 1982.
Writing to her husband on 6 October on the occasion of the private opening of the exhibition,
Hannah Carter expressed her enthusiasm:

To see the PAINTINGS hanging, more or less all together, all at once is a THRILL! The
Collection hangs, as a whole, better than any I have ever seen. The number of paintings
not too large, each one a choice example of the artist's work—interesting and varied
subject matter, each one in fine condition. What I want to say, is that thee had a lot of
courage to accumulate the collection, in spite of me, and the result is stupendous. 20

In his speech to the assembled guests at the opening reception, Edward Carter closed:

Hannah and I hope that our Dutch paintings will come to this museum beyond our lives.
As you may have observed, the two collections complement each other well, which
is not entirely by accident, and together should form one of the most distinguished and
comprehensive collections of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings in the country. 21

Recommending the "marvelous exhibition" that had just opened at LACMA, the Los Angeles
Herald Examiner art critic Christopher Knight noted that the Carters' collection was "regarded
by many as the finest private holdings of Dutch art in America," and he restated their intention

"to bequeath this jewel of a collection to LACMA. With that in mind, it becomes clear that
the collection has been intelligently selected, focusing on landscapes, still lifes, and seascapes
to mesh nicely with the museum's own holdings of portraiture and genre paintings." 22

When A Mirror of 'Nature opened in Boston in January, John Russell, art critic for the New
York Times who planned to write a full review of the exhibition when it reached New York,
could not resist mentioning "the [Carters'] very superior collection" in an article focused on
the concurrent monographic exhibition of works by Jacob van Ruisdael at the Fogg Art
Museum, Harvard University. 23 In the news release about the exhibition, which opened at the
Metropolitan Museum on 7 April, Philippe de Montebello wrote, "The collection of 17th-
century paintings assembled by Mr. and Mrs. Carter is an outstanding achievement. Few public
or private collections outside the Netherlands have such a wide representation of 17th-century
Dutch paintings of comparable quality." 24

On 16 April 1982, in an article in the New York Times , Russell called the collection a "jewel
box of Old Masters," describing the selection as "thoughtful, strange and touching beyond
all expectation." 25 Years later, on 3 June 1990, referring to the 1981-82 exhibition, Russell wrote
in the New York Times , "It goes without saying that any of these museums would have been
delighted to own, in time, any one painting from the show, let alone all of them." 26

Letters of congratulation and praise poured in from American and European friends,
many of whom had advised the Carters. Seymour Slive and his wife, Zoya, sent a telegram
from Harvard: "In the heavenly place which is the reward of artists all the painters listed in
Bernt [a dictionary of seventeenth-century Dutch painters] are rejoicing because the exhibi¬
tion of your choice collection shows the wide public the outstanding quality and enormous
pleasure that can be derived from Dutch pictures. We share their monumental delight."

Betty Mont recalled the pleasure she and her husband, Frederick, had working with
the Carters, noting that twelve of the paintings in the collection had come through them.
Regrets from people who were unable to attend the private opening requested or thanked
them for copies of the catalogue and informed the Carters of paintings of high quality and
condition that they thought might interest them. Invitations to meet other important
Dutch and American collectors also multiplied now that the quality of their collection was
so widely recognized.

In addition to the collectors they personally visited, the Carters graciously welcomed
people to see their collection in their Bel Air home, where the paintings were beautifully
displayed as an integral part of the tasteful furnishings. Collectors, scholars, curators, dealers,
and students as well as friends and business associates were regularly welcomed by the
Carters. Even the queen of the Netherlands visited the Carters in their home to see their famous
collection of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. Both Mr. and Mrs. Carter delighted in
walking their visitors through the collection, commenting on details about the artist and
the paintings and carefully listening to the comments of their visitors. They wanted to learn
about the works they owned.

The Carters' acquisition of paintings slowed during the 1980s following their first exhibi¬
tion. The paintings by Esaias van de Velde and De Vlieger, acquired in 1981, were last-minute
additions to the exhibition. In 1982 the Carters purchased two more paintings, both from
Nystad: Jan van Goyen's View of Arnhem, their second masterpiece by the Dutch painter of tonal
landscapes; and one of the most aesthetically pleasing and perfectly conserved works by Clara
Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses; Artichoke, and Cherries. The following year they added two more
paintings: an early painting by Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and
Glasses, that was jointly sold by the dealers John Hoogsteder in The Hague and Otto Naumann
in New York; and Salomon van Ruysdael's View of the River Lek and Vianen from Noortman & Brod

in Maastricht. Their most important acquisition was The Great Oak, purchased from the London
firm Harari & Johns in 1985. Painted by Jacob van Ruisdael with figures by Nicolaes Berchem,
the painting had belonged to the famous Italian collection of Cardinal Gonzaga in the
eighteenth century. The Great Oak was the last painting to enter the collection. The Carters'
fabulous adventure buying paintings had come to an end. It was time to enjoy what they
had. When David Koetser offered them Jan Davidsz. de Heem's beautiful Still Life with Oysters
and Grapes, a perfect "Carter painting/' they passed it on to LACMA for consideration. Scott
Schaefer, then curator of European paintings, purchased the still life for the museum with the
support of The Ahmanson Foundation.

In 1991 LACMA exhibited A Mirror of Nature and republished the catalogue by Walsh
and Schneider with the addition of the six paintings purchased since the original exhibition
ten years earlier. William Wilson wrote in the Los Angeles Times on 3 November 1992 that the
collection was "renowned among scholars for both its connoisseurship and its clear exercise of
decisive personal taste." 27

The Carters continued to travel to see exhibitions and collections and receive visitors at
their home. Even as Mr. Carter's health declined, Mrs. Carter included him in her activities
and travels. Joseph Fronek, who became LACMA's head paintings conservator in 1986, developed
a strong relationship with the Carters, who depended on him to conserve the collection and
to evaluate loans, possible acquisitions, and frames. They also became close friends. Following
Edward Carter's death in 1994, Fronek often escorted Mrs. Carter to the theater and concerts
as well as to see exhibitions in which her paintings were included. Mrs. Carter was a regular
visitor to what she always called "our museum" and dropped into the museum's conservation
department as if it were her second home. She looked forward to lunch in LACMA's cafe with
Fronek and his colleague Jini Rasmussen and others. She always had a warm smile and hello
for everyone, from the director to the guards, all of whom greeted her with true affection.

In the winter of 2004 Cramer, who was in Los Angeles as a guest of the Getty Research Institute,
to which he had donated his business records, made a visit with the author to see Hannah
Carter. Walking through the house, viewing the paintings, the two old friends, both well into
their eighties, reminisced about the fun they had had in the 1970s selecting and talking
about paintings.

In 2003 Hannah Carter, who, William Wilson said, "puts one in mind of Katharine
Hepburn," 28 gifted eleven paintings from the collection to LACMA. It was not the first gift,
but it was the largest to date. In 1991 the Carters had given Ruisdael's The Great Oak and Van
Huysum's flower still life, followed in 1995 by De Vlieger's View of a Beach and in 1996 Aelbert
Cuyp's The Flight into Egypt. In 2004, when Hannah Carter moved to Northern California to
be near her children, the twenty-four paintings remaining in her collection, including Corot's
River Landscape, Fantin-Latour's Fleurs et fruits, and the family portraits, were brought to
LACMA for safekeeping. Hannah Carter died in Menlo Park, California, on 20 April 2009. The
collection that Hannah and Edward Carter had lovingly built to be given to LACMA was
finally home, located in galleries that they had donated to the museum that Edward Carter
had helped to build in 1965. 29

Standing in the newly installed galleries in which the low horizons and broad skies of
the landscapes and the beautifully composed still lifes create an impression of serenity, William
Carter, Edward Carter's son by his first marriage, looked from painting to painting. He had
been going through his father's papers filled with the many accolades and awards, and records
of his accomplishments as a leader in business, education, and culture. Yet, he remarked
that his father's greatest legacy was this, the thirty-six carefully selected seventeenth-century
Dutch paintings that constitute the Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter collection.

The legacy of the Carter collection, which is an important part of LACMA, extends beyond
Los Angeles through not only the children and adults who visit the museum but also the
people who have been inspired to collect Dutch paintings because of seeing the paintings in
the Carters' home or in the museum, or simply knowing the collection through the catalogue
A Mirror of Nature. In the introduction to the catalogue Golden: Dutch and Flemish Paintings
from the Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo Collection, regarded as one of the most important private
collections of seventeenth-century Dutch and Flemish paintings formed in the last thirty
years, Frederik Duparc notes: "At the very beginning of their collecting career in the early 1990s,
[the Van Otterloos] were inspired by The Edward and Hannah Carter Collection.... During
a much more recent visit to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art... they were once again
deeply impressed by its high quality as well as by the public recognition accorded to the
Carters' achievements as collectors." 30 According to Eijk van Otterloo, the Carter collection set
the standard for them in terms of both quality and condition of the paintings. Inspired
by the Carters, in 2017 the Van Otterloos donated their collection to the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, where it can be enjoyed by present and future generations, extending the legacy
of the Carters.

NOTES

1 This and other personal comments by Hannah
and Edward Carter have been taken from
transcripts of oral histories done in their home on
17 May 1987 by Rick E. Robinson and Jeanne
Nakamura, Committee on Human Development,
University of Chicago, for the University of
Chicago/J. Paul Getty Museum Aesthetic Research
Project.

2 In a letter to Carter dated 20 Oct. 1981 (Carter files,
LACMA), Betty Mont noted that twelve of the
paintings in the catalogue of the Carters’
collection, A Mirror of Nature, had come from the
Monts, “although our names were not mentioned.
The reason for it is simply that—we enjoyed
looking for items for you, showing and discussing
them with you—we preferred to leave the
business part to the Newhouses and to remain in
the background.”

3 Hans Cramer Records, Box 101, Folder 12,

Getty Research Institute.

4 Hans Cramer Records, Box 102, Folder 8,

Getty Research Institute.

5 Hans Cramer Records, Box 101, Folder 12.

Getty Research Institute.

6 Hans Cramer Records, Box 102, Folder 18,

Getty Research Institute.

7 Hans Cramer Records, Box 102, Folder 18,

Getty Research Institute.

8 Hans Cramer Records, Box 104, Folder 2,

Getty Research Institute.

9 Hans Cramer Records, Box 104, Folder 8, Getty
Research Institute. Cramer, frustrated with Carter
and Donahue, had written to Roberts to offer the
Van Goyen on 19 August, the same day he wrote to
Carter that he had not heard back from him about
the painting (both Box 104, Folder 2).

10 Hans Cramer Records, Box 108, Folder 10,

Getty Research Institute.

11 Carter files, LACMA archives.

12 A. B. de Vries 1964 and A. B. de Vries et al. 1968.

13 Frits Markus to Edward Carter, 14 Oct. 1981,

Acc. 2016.011, Box 9, Folder “Mirror of Nature—
Los Angeles,” LACMA archives.

14 Edward Carter to Frits Markus, 29 Oct. 1981,

Acc. 2016.011, Box 9, Folder “Mirror of Nature—
Los Angeles,” LACMA archives.

15 Hans Cramer Records, Box 112, Folder 4,

Getty Research Institute.

16 Hans Cramer Records, Box 113, Folder 3,

Getty Research Institute.

17 Hans Cramer Records, Box 112, Folder 2,

Getty Research Institute.

18 Regarding the controversy over these paintings,
see The Hague-San Francisco 1990-91, pp.
186-88.

19 “Edward and Hannah Carter,” archives. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

20 Hannah Carter to Edward Carter, 6 Oct. 1981,

Acc. 2016.011, Folder “Mirror of Nature—

Los Angeles,” LACMA archives.

21 Edward Carter, remarks for opening reception
at LACMA for Mirror of Nature, dated 6 Oct. 1981,
Acc. 2016.011, Folder “Mirror of Nature—

Los Angeles,” LACMA archives.

22 Christopher Knight, “An Icy Rodeo Drive? Nope,
Holland 1620.” Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 14 Oct.
1981, sec. B, 1.

23 Russell 1982.

24 De Montebello 1982.

25 Russell 1982a.

26 Russell 1990.

27 Wilson 1992.

28 Wilson 1992.

29 In the will, LACMA was given 25 percent of two
paintings, Hendrick Avercamp’s Winter Scene on a
Frozen Canal and Jan van der Heyden’s The
Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht.
The remaining 75 percent of the paintings were
acquired through the generosity of The
Ahmanson Foundation and other sources.

30 Salem-San Francisco-Houston 2011-12, p. 45.

NOTE TO THE READER:
TECHNICAL REPORTS

Joseph Fronek

Senior Conservator and Head,
Paintings Conservation

Elma O'Donoghue

Conservator,

Paintings Conservation

Conservation Center

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

The Carter collection of landscapes, marines, church interiors, and still-life paintings presents
the viewer with various styles and ways of painting in seventeenth-century Holland. Artists'
visions from the beginning of the century to its end make for striking comparisons. One has
only to look from Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1619) to Jan van Huysum (1724) to see the
contrast in the depiction of still lifes of flowers. So it is as well with the way the artists worked.
Their materials and techniques varied, sometimes subtly, from artist to artist, and sometimes
dramatically, from the beginning to the latter part of the century.

Conservators and scientists studied each painting in the collection using various analytical
methods to discover how these artists turned their visions into paintings. The findings
are summarized in the Technical Reports. The following methods of examination were used.

Visual and Magnification

A visual study with and without simple magnification provided physical information regard¬
ing the type of support, methods of paint application, colors, and condition. Various
intensities of light, as well as raking light, aided in seeing the makeup of each painting and its
surface texture. Higher magnification of a stereomicroscope (up to 45 cross section [xs]) and
a digital microscope (up to 175 xs) distinguished some layers of ground, paint, and varnish and
some pigments.

Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation

Ultraviolet radiation aided in the description of varnishes, paints, some pigments, and resto¬
rations because of the way some materials fluoresce while others do not.

X-radiography

X-radiography was used to study the paintings. Some X-radiographs have been marked to
highlight pentimenti and other information discussed in the entries.

X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) is a noninvasive technique that was used to determine
pigments in the paint layers.

Infrared Reflectography 1

Infrared reflectography (IRR) has traditionally been used to detect artists' underdrawings.
However, IRR can also detect damages, working methods, and pentimenti, some of which may
not be visible with X-radiography. In order to see underdrawing, upper paints must be
partially transparent in infrared. In addition, underdrawings and grounds must contrast in
IRR or the drawing will not be visible. Fortunately, these conditions are often found in
seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. Underdrawings that might have been carried out with
red chalk or IR-transparent pigments were not visible with our IRR equipment.

Pigment Identification

We identified pigments by several means, all of which were nondestructive; that is, no pig¬
ment samples were removed from the paintings. Pigments are named in these entries to
provide insight into the appearance of a passage in a painting and to point out interesting or
uncommon uses.

Examination of the Parts of a Painting:

Support, Ground, Paint Layers, and Surface Coating

Painting supports in the Carter collection are of four types: wood, canvas, copper, and paper
on wood.

Wood Panels

In northern Europe wood panels for painting were most often made of oak. However, since
no wood expert was on hand for this study, the type of wood is given only if it has previously
been identified.

Wood panels were composed of one or more boards. The reverse was usually beveled to facili¬
tate fitting and clamping in a frame. In the entries the orientation of the panels—horizontal
or vertical—is also the direction of the wood grain. A panel's description includes the
number of boards making up the panel, each board's width, the thickness of the panel, and
the presence or absence of bevels.

Many panels have been affected by changes in relative humidity and temperature, which
can cause changes in wood dimensions and consequent warping, cracking, and opening of
joins. Wood-boring insects are another problem. A common treatment for a deteriorated panel
involved attaching a cradle (lattice of wood) to its reverse to shore up its strength. Before
attaching a cradle, the panel would most likely be thinned so that it could be flattened
and separations in the wood mended. The entries note the conditions of the panels and any
possible treatment such as thinning and cradling.

A few paintings have a paper support adhered to a wood panel. How this combination came
about is not always clear: the image on the paper may have begun as a sketch but was adhered
to panel to be worked up as an oil painting; or the artist may have desired a particular
appearance that paper on panel gave to a painting. There is also the possibility that a painting
on paper was adhered to a panel at a later date.

Only one painting in the collection has a copper support. It is the Bosschaert still life (cat. no. 4),
which exemplifies how and why metal would have been used as a painting support. The
hard, nonabsorbent metal surface imparts a rich, enamel-like appearance to the painting and
is excellent for painting fine details.

Canvas

During the seventeenth century the use of canvas for paintings became more common. Canvases
are described in the entries by type of weave, which for all the paintings in this collection
appears to be plain weave; by weight—light, medium, or heavy weight; and by regularity of
the weave—fine, regular, rough, or uneven, for example. Thread count and fiber type,
which was commonly flax, were not determined at this time.

Deteriorated or damaged canvases were most often repaired by lining, which is the process of
attaching a new canvas to the reverse of the painting with an adhesive. The lining type is
identified here by an estimation of the lining adhesive, such as aqueous based (paste and/or
glue), wax resin, or synthetic adhesive.

Paintings on canvas must have a supporting framework, which is identified in the entries.
Pictures of the period showing artists at work in their studios depict paintings stretched with
a cord inside a temporary strainer larger than the painting itself. When finished, paintings
were presumably tacked onto strainers. Like most old master paintings, all canvases in the
Carter collection were later mounted on expandable stretchers. Stretchers have been produced
only since the eighteenth century.

Preparation of Support

Supports, whether canvas or wood, must be prepared for painting by applying one or more
grounds. Sometimes the ground covering and paint are thin enough that the color and grain
of a wood panel shows on the surface, most likely the artist's intention. The colors of the
grounds, which affect the appearance of the images, and their comparative thickness are noted
from observation with a digital microscope. However, it would be necessary to take samples
for cross sections to confirm the observations and to detect any thin imprimatura on top of the
ground or of any size between the support and the ground. With age and deterioration,
the wood grain of a panel may become more noticeable, and consequently it is often toned by
conservators so that it is not disturbing.

Underdrawing

Artists often sketched designs for paintings on the ground. For the purposes of this study,
"underdrawings" are sketches in drawing media such as black chalk, charcoal or graphite,
or a fluid medium containing carbon black that is applied by brush. We categorized under¬
drawing as (1) freehand or (2) transferred.

In several paintings in the Carter collection it was found that artists used more than one
type of underdrawing material; for instance, Simon de Vlieger (cat. no. 34) combined charcoal
or black chalk with brushed underdrawing. It is possible in some cases that one type of
underdrawing developed or refined the initial underdrawing, whether it was transferred or
freehand; see Jan van der Heyden (cat. no. 14). In some paintings, drafting tools such as
compasses, T squares, and straightedges were used; see Jan van Huysum (cat. no. 17) and
Emanuel de Witte (cat. nos. 35,36).

Traditionally, many Dutch painters used underdrawing as a guide that was ultimately covered.
De Witte (cat. nos. 35,36), for instance, obliterated all of his elaborate underdrawing with
paint layers. Bosschaert (cat. no. 4), Van Huysum (cat. no. 17), Dirck de Bray (cat. no. 6), and Van
der Heyden (cat. no. 14) did likewise, disguising, rather than incorporating, the guides that
assisted their painterly creations.

It is clear, however, that other seventeenth-century artists were changing the more "tradi¬
tional" relationship between underdrawing and painting, and that the term "underdrawing"
may not always be adequate for describing their technique. In some instances there is no
clear division between the underdrawing and the painting stages. This was particularly true
with paintings by three Haarlem school artists, Jan Porcellis (cat. no. 22), Esaias van de Velde
(cat. no. 31), and Jan van Goyen (cat. nos. 11,12). These artists deliberately left their initial
brushed designs visible, incorporating them into their final compositions for a more sponta¬
neous appearance.

Sometimes artists brushed in a scheme with dark brown or even a colored paint that may
not contain any or enough carbon black to show in IRR. In the finished painting the dark or
sometimes colored lay-in may help create shadows or other features visible in the final
painting. In the entries, such a "sketch" may be referenced as underpainting or first lay-in.

Paint Layers

The entries describe the layers of paint in each painting—the initial lay-in or underpaint, the
subsequent layers, including opaque paint and impasto, and thin, transparent glazes and
scumbles. However, cross sections would be necessary to verify the observations made with
magnification from the surface of the paintings or edges of losses. Cited also are methods
of paint application, which include type of brush or use of sponge or lichen, as well as physical
characteristics of paint application, which include brushy marks or grooves left by a stiff
brush or carefully blended, all of which add to the appearance of a painting.

Study with X-rays and infrared found pentimenti at every stage of creation, some of which are
visible with the unaided eye. Artists changed their designs while drawing and while painting.
And, as they painted they made changes from the drawn design and totally omitted some
elements of the design. All of these changes are noted as pentimenti in the entries.

Surface Coatings

Surface coatings or varnishes can be described by degree of gloss, evenness, saturation, clarity,
and condition—all of which affect the appearance of a painting. From study with visible
light and with ultraviolet rays, it may be possible to estimate the type of varnish and its age.
Usually, any original coating on paintings from this period would have been removed in past
cleanings, but if any varnish remnants of an earlier coating was found, it has been noted.

Changes in Dimensions and Proportions of Paintings

A painting's dimensions may change over time for a number of reasons. An artist may wish
to expand a composition or make it smaller; deterioration of edges could lead to resizing; or
an owner might prefer a different format. There are changes in the dimensions in a few
paintings in the Carter collection. Various clues help one to determine if and how the dimen¬
sions of a painting have been altered. Edges of wood panels, for example, were examined
for saw marks or irregularities. If disturbed, the paint along any edge may be jagged rather
than uniform or smooth.

The presence of original tacking margins on canvas paintings should ensure the integrity of
a painting. Tacking margins are the edges of a painting that fold over the front edge of
a strainer or stretcher at a ninety-degree angle to be secured with something like tacks to the
sides of the strainer or stretcher. Tacking margins often carry some ground but usually little or
no paint. They are vulnerable and usually deteriorate to the point where they can no longer
support a painting. To correct this deterioration, a painting was usually lined. Unfortunately,
the tacking margins were often removed before lining.

Any remnants of tacking margins help to establish the original dimensions. Sometimes a sliver
of a margin or the impression of the bend from the front edge of the stretcher at the edge
of the painting remains to help establish the original dimensions. A thin line of ground and
paint loss usually exists along the line of the bend. Such "lines of loss" are usually visible
in an X-radiograph, if not to the unaided eye.

Another frequently detected testament to the original dimensions is cusping or scalloping.

A canvas secured to a framework will develop scallops along the perimeter of the fabric, with
the pulled, attached points alternating with the areas in between. Scalloping should be more
pronounced along the edges of the stretched fabric than toward the center. The presence
or absence and degree of scalloping along the edges have been used to gauge the integrity of
a painted canvas. However, reading cusping to determine the original dimensions of a painting
is complicated and not a precise science. Ernst van der Wetering has explained the uses
and pitfalls in his essential book on Rembrandt's working methods. 2 Cusping may be visible
in raking light or in an X-radiograph, and, if present, it is described in a painting's entry.

To aid the reader in understanding the technical data, images such as X-radiographs and details
of the painting and microphotographs have been provided. These visual aids bring to view
some of the normally unseen parts of a painting that are so important to understanding both
the painting's appearance and the artist's intent.

NOTES

1 The capturing of the Carter collection paintings
with IRR was carried out by Joseph Fronek,

Elma O’Donoghue, and Yosi Pozeilov, Senior
Conservation Photographer at LACMA, using the
Phoenix Digital Infrared Camera made by Indigo
Systems. This camera has an indium gallium
arsenide (InGaAs) CCD detector with a high-format
array of 640 x 512 pixels. It is sensitive in the
near-infrared range of 9oonm to i695nm. Occasion¬
ally interference bandpass filters were used to
maximize the visibility of some underdrawing
materials, and noted accordingly in the Technical
Report. Infrared reflectograms are captured

as BINS and then exported as 14-bit TIFFs. The
stitching together of individual IRRs was
conducted by Pozeilov using Photoshop CS6. This
equipment was purchased with a generous grant
from The Ahmanson Foundation.

2 Van de Wetering 1997, pp. niff.

Catalogue

Entries

Avercamp

Van der Neer

130

Berckheyde

Peeters

134

Van Borssom

Porcellis

140

Bosschaert

4 6

Post

144

Both

Pynacker

150

De Bray

Van Ruisdael and Berchem

156

Van de Cappelle

Van Ruisdael

162

Claesz.

Van Ruysdael

166

Coorte

Van Ruysdael

170

Cuyp

Saenredam

176

Van Goyen

Van de Velde, Adriaen

182

Van Goyen

Van de Velde, Esaias

188

Heda

Van de Velde, the Younger,

192

Van der Heyden

Willem

Hobbema

104

Van de Velde, the Younger,

196

Hobbema

104

Willem, and workshop

Van Huysum

108

De Vlieger

202

Kalf

118

De Witte

208

Koninck

124

De Witte

218

Notes

224

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Hendrick Avercamp

(1585-1634)

Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal , ca. 1620
Oil on wood, 14% x 25 Vi in.

(37.2 x 64.8 cm)

Signed at right, on sled: HA

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
and purchased with funds provided by The
Ahmanson Foundation, the Paul Rodman Mabury
Collection, the William Randolph Hearst Collection,
the Michael J. Connell Foundation, the Marion
Davies Collection, Mr. and Mrs. Lauritz Melchior,
Mr. and Mrs. R. Stanton Avery, the Estate of Anita M.
Baldwin by exchange, and Hannah L. Carter
M.2009.106.23

P ainted about 1620, Winter Scene onaFrozen Canal

captures the festive atmosphere that accompanied
the freezing of the canals and rivers during the
late sixteenth and much of the seventeenth century, when
the Netherlands and parts of Europe experienced the
so-called Little Ice Age. Disrupting normal traffic by boat,
the exceptionally cold temperatures turned inland water¬
ways into roadways and recreational parks for rich and
poor. 1 Stalls and tents erected on the ice sold food and drink
and other wares (fig. 1.1). According to an English visitor
to Holland:

In winter the ladies, or better sort of women are...
taken abroad by their gallants (often) or husbands
(seldom except when first married) in Polish sleds or
sledges, richly gilt and carved, covered with embroi¬
dery of gold or silver or rich silk or tapestry, drawn by
a fine horse, richly harnessed.... The ordinary sort
of people divert themselves ... in winter in skating,
which they do very much and promiscuously, boys and
girls, young men and maidens, and some few of the
better sort are sometimes seen on the ice at that sport. 2

Avercamp's subtle palette of white tones suggests the
chill air of the winter day. Beneath the cloudy sky that seems
to dissolve into the frozen river stretching deep into the
distance, a cross section of society dressed against the cold
meets on the ice. In contrast to Esaias van de Velde's Cottages
and Frozen River (see cat. no. 31), in which villagers go about
their chores unselfconsciously and are visually integrated
into the tonal landscape, here clearly defined figures appear
as a frieze in the foreground, where they perform like
actors on a stage. On the left, a duck hunter sporting a red
muffler, a gun on his shoulder, and ducks hanging from
his belt directs attention to a gypsy fortune-teller, who reads
the palm of a young woman. A second gypsy converses
with another woman who is accompanied by a man and
young girl. Behind them people skate and play coif- —an
early form of golf—while others fish, chat, or travel across
the ice by foot, sleds, or in horse-drawn sleighs. 3

The identities of the elegantly dressed gentleman with
a sword and greyhound and the woman who wears a mask
and carries a muff in the right foreground of the Carter
painting have attracted the attention of scholars. The couple
also appear in a watercolor by Avercamp of four adults
and two youths (fig. 1.2) and in a painting in a private collec¬
tion in the Netherlands. 4 The inscription on a colored
facsimile print of the watercolor made by the collector and
publisher Cornelis Ploos van Amstel (1726-1798), dated
1766 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-1944-54),
identifies the figures as Frederick V (1596-1632) and his wife,
Elisabeth Stuart (1596-1662), the sister of Charles I of
England. 5 As elector of Palatine, Frederick was installed as

king of Bohemia by the Protestant princes in 1619, only to be
forced out by the army of the Holy Roman Emperor after
one winter. In 1620 the couple, who became known as the
Winter King and Queen, and their children took refuge
in The Hague, where they lived in exile as guests of the Dutch
government. Ploos van AmsteTs identification of the figures
was accepted by scholars, including Clara Welcker, who
argued that Ploos van Amstel was mistaken only about the
date. She suggested a date of 1626, when the Kampen
archives record the extended visit of Frederick and Elisabeth,
as well as Elisabeth's former lady-in-waiting Amalia von
Solms (1602-1675), who had married the Dutch stadholder
Frederik Hendrik, prince of Orange (1584-1647), the pre¬
vious year. 6

Scholars now generally dismiss Ploos van Amstel's
identification of the figures on the far right, noting that
known portraits of Frederick and Elisabeth do not resemble
the man and masked woman. 7 Bianca du Mortier notes,
furthermore, that the costume worn by the woman in the
right foreground, which dates about 1615 to 1620, would
have been too outmoded to have been worn by a royal prin¬
cess in 1626. She suggests that the figures might be generic
aristocrats, who represented an influential class in Kampen J

People similarly dressed in elegant costumes appear
throughout the painting: the woman riding in the sleigh on
the left, for example, wears a mask and an expensive ermine-
trimmed (and possibly lined) cape to protect her from the
cold. 9 A sword—an attribute of a gentleman of rank—is also
worn by the skater in red, who uses it for balance. Another
fashionably dressed man, seen beyond the gypsies, has
handed his sword and cape to his page as he tries to skate,
while in the right background a black page dressed in red
holds the cape and sword of his master.

Mingling among the patricians are children and
townsfolk as well as fishermen and people in tattered clothes
going about their business. Du Mortier suggests that the
unusual variety of people relates to the social structure of
Kampen, where, in contrast to cities in the urbanized
western area of the Netherlands, the aristocracy leased their
lands to tenants. 10 Gypsies, many of whom had settled in the
vicinity of Kampen since the fifteenth century, were also
commonly sighted in the town. 11 Some of the people, like the
rustic man with a pole in the lower left corner and the boy
with the ax on the right, stop to observe the activities of
the wealthy. The social relationship is the opposite of that
seen in paintings by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625),
such as Country Life ( Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. no. 1444),
where it is the patricians who observe the activities of the
countryside. 12 Like Brueghel's paintings, however. Winter
Scene on a Frozen Canal, which may have been commissioned,
was intended to appeal to wealthy collectors who would
have identified with the elegantly dressed people and
enjoyed the many amusing anecdotes.

Avercamp, Winter Scene onaFrozen Canal

The setting of Avercamp's painting is fanciful, contrived
to create the impression of a deep space that recedes to
a central point on the horizon. The central focus, relatively
high horizon, and stage-like presentation of the figures
recall the winter landscape tradition practiced by Pieter
Bruegel (ca. 1525-1569), which Hans Bol (1534-1593) and
David Vinckboons (1576-ca. 1629) took to Amsterdam when
they fled Antwerp. Although there is no evidence of direct
contact, it was most likely in Amsterdam, where Avercamp
apprenticed, that he became familiar with the work of the
Flemings. While adopting many of the popular motifs from
these artists in his mature works, including the Carter
painting, Avercamp lowered the horizon and eliminated
the trees and buildings in the foreground, replacing them
with a porous frieze of people. Whereas Bruegel used
saturated, sometimes rather brown, pigment in the fore¬
ground, receding to greenish shades in the center and blue
in the distance, Avercamp defined his landscape with
thin applications of light blue, pale yellow, and soft pink
paint to create the impression of an icy pallor that blurs
the distant figures and dissolves the horizon into the sky. 13

The placement of the figures in the background of the
Carter painting appears on first impression to be random,
but it is actually carefully planned. Avercamp's ability to
gauge the relative sizes of the figures accurately suggests his
familiarity with linear perspective, particularly in the prints
and books published by Hans Vredeman de Vries (1527-
ca. 1607). 14 Avercamp creates the impression of deep space by
carefully positioning the figures and sleighs. Their sug¬
gested movement reinforces the receding lines of the dikes
that visually converge at a central point in the distance.

In the lower left a driver standing on the runners of a sleigh
with two passengers cracks his whip over a horse racing
diagonally across the ice into the distance, where it aligns
with a similar sleigh near the horizon. Avercamp balances
the implied movement in the picture by placing the
fashionable couple skating forward in the center, followed
by a younger couple dressed in traditional Waterland
costumes, typical of the province just north of Amsterdam.
He anchors the composition in the foreground with the
rustic man with a pole in the lower left corner, the dog on
the right, and the man dressed in a black jacket and breeches
who skates across the center foreground parallel to the
picture plane.

Avercamp maintained a large collection of figure
studies and drawings of groups of two or more figures
taken from life, which he used in various combinations in
multiple paintings and finished drawings. 15 The figures
of the man tying his skates and of the man helping a woman

on with her skates appear frequently in Avercamp's drawings
and paintings, as do the stylish skater dressed in red balanc¬
ing on one foot and the Waterland couple skating behind
him. The skater in red is closely related to a pen and ink
drawing in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle (Royal
Collection Trust, London, inv. no. RCIN 906477). The duck
hunter, who appears frequently in the same costume but
in various poses, was undoubtedly a subject Avercamp
studied from life and manipulated to suit his needs (Rijks-
museum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1886-A-684). Avercamp
similarly reversed another drawing (Royal Collection
Trust, London, inv. no. RCIN 906468) 16 for the charming
vignette of the sled with the child seated on his mother's lap
who excitedly points to the passing horse-drawn sleigh.

The figure of the gypsy also appears in a drawing (Hamburger
Kunsthalle, Hamburg, inv. no. 21647) that may represent
a scene directly observed or that may itself be based on other
drawings. The young woman seen in profile as she has
her fortune read is based on another study from life in red
and black chalk (Royal Collection Trust, London, inv. no.
RCIN 906506).

Attempts to read meaning into Avercamp's paintings
are inconclusive. His winter scenes were not part of seasonal
cycles or paired with summer scenes. Typical of seventeenth-
century landscape painters, he incorporated traditional
allegorical images of winter without, however, intending
his paintings themselves to be read as allegories. The old
man with a basket crossing the ice in the middle distance on
the right, who frequently appears in Avercamp's paintings,
refers to the traditional association of winter with the
end of life. 17 The fortune-teller and the man splayed across
the ice, blood flowing from his mouth and his coif stick
and hat on the ice in front of him, refer to fortune and the
slipperiness of life, the theme of an inscription posthu¬
mously attached in the mid-seventeenth century to a popular
print by Frans Huys (1522-1562) after Pieter Bruegel, Skaters
by Saint George's Gate in Antwerp, 1556-60: 18

Oh learn from this scene how we pass through the world.

Slithering as we go, one foolish, the other wise.

On this impermanence, far brittler than ice. 13

In this context, the boy blowing on coals in a brazier behind
the woman having her fortune read may refer to the fortunes
of love as well as to winter. 20 Ultimately, however, while
Avercamp's patrons may have recognized his references to
the traditional iconography of allegorical prints, they
would have appreciated his paintings primarily for their
aesthetic beauty and the wealth and variety of anecdotal
detail that continue to entertain modern viewers.

Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 1.2

Fig. 1.1 Bernaerd van den Putte (1528-1580), Scene
on the Frozen River Scheldt with Antwerp in the Distance,
1565. Woodcut, 6Y2 x 8% in. (16.4 x 22.5 cm).
Rijksprentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Fig. 1.2 Hendrick Avercamp, Aan het ijs bijDen Haag
(On the Ice in The Hague), 1605-34. Watercolor on
paper, 7% x 9% in. (18.8 x 24 cm). Teylers Museum,
Haarlem, The Netherlands (inv. no. O+008)

Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal

TECHNICAL

REPORT

The panel, about Vie inch thick, has
been thinned and cradled. There are no
bevels. The wood grain is distinctly visi¬
ble on the surface of the painting, which
also has slight vertical undulations,
probably a result of its manufacture.
There is an indentation, perhaps a knot,
on the right side at the center. The
panel has a slight convex warp and
three minor cracks on the left side.

The thin white ground contains primar¬
ily calcium carbonate, and infrared
reflectography (IRR) 1 revealed several
lines that are clearly underdrawing
(fig. TR1.1). These were found in the
horizon, in some of the buildings on the
left, and in a boat also on the left side
of the painting. These cursory lines
could have been made with a finely
sharpened black chalk or charcoal stick
or with graphite. Avercamp used both
black chalk and graphite in his many
sketches and drawings as well as in
other paintings. 2 He painted over some
of these underdrawn lines as he worked.

IRR also revealed several pentimenti
executed with carbon black and covered
with lead-white paint. Most of the penti¬
menti are now visible to the unaided
eye because of the transparency of the
aged paint. They are mainly small
changes in the figures, the most obvious
being the adjustments to the bustle of
the black skirt, shoulder, and arms of
the woman skating with the man in red
at the center of the painting (figs. TR 1.2;
TR 1.3). Avercamp began by outlining
this female figure and applying the
initial washes (all in carbon black and
hence visible in IRR). White paint was
used to cover up the earlier parts,
and the adjusted figure was painted the
same way with outlines, washes, and
more opaque paints.

The artist developed interesting tech¬
niques to create this cold winter scene.
He applied a thin layer of light-colored
paint for the ice and sky. The off-white
color contains mostly lead-white, smalt,
lead-tin yellow, and copper-based
pigments. The blue color around the
holes in the ice was achieved with a thin
layer of blue paint containing smalt
and/or black paint on top of the light
paint layer that was then covered with

a thin layer of light-colored paint. Some
areas of the sky have a slight darkish
tint created with a similar type of
layering of thin light, dark, and finally
light paint layers. The tree on the
left side was painted with a dark, warm
color, and then some of the branches
were subdued with light-colored paint.
The sandwiching of a dark between the
lights creates an optical effect perfect
for the representation of a cold, damp
atmosphere. 3

Figures and accoutrements were given
form with dull colors that relate to
the local color and remain visible to some
degree as part of the completed image.
The dull color partially outlines and
fills the forms to various degrees. For
example, rust-colored paint used to
lay in the red-suited figure in the fore¬
ground was almost entirely covered
with local color, a bright red supplied
by the pigment vermilion-cinnabar. The
artist highlighted the red with lighter
colors and glazed with translucent deep
red paint to form folds and shade. The
rust-colored paint left visible along

Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal

Fig. TR1.2 Detail

Fig. TR1.3 Pentimento found in the IRR in the
woman skating. Note the earlier higher bustle and
shifts in her shoulder and left and right arm. These
are slightly visible in normal light due to increased
transparency of the paint as a result of aging.

some edges of the costume is dull com¬
pared with the bright red local color;
it therefore recedes, turning the fabric
back in space. In contrast, much of the
first sketch in dull reddish paint
remains visible in the pink coat of the
sleigh driver in the far left foreground.
The finely brushed outline was filled
with a thin application of the dull
reddish paint. Then the artist applied
only a few strokes of pink.

As would be expected, the forms become
more and more sketchy, moving to
the hazy background, where most of the
staffage was sketched with the appro¬
priate dull color, covered with only
a few strokes of local opaque color. In
contrast, thick, bright, flesh-colored
paint forms the faces and hands of many
of these figures.

The technique employed by Avercamp
in his paintings appears to be related to
that used in his highly finished water-
color drawings. In these drawings the
figures have few changes because he
already knew exactly how they would
look from his numerous preparatory
sketches. The colored drawings were
done with graphite or chalk and

developed with penned outlines and
washes of color, both transparent and
opaque. He sold the more refined
drawings as “less expensive” paintings.

Carefully superimposing the IRR with
the color image of LACMA’s painting
showed a somewhat unusual under¬
drawing technique: all figures have
essentially been outlined using colors
that relate to the final color of the figures 5
costumes. Avercamp intentionally left
all of these brushed outlines visible
as part of the final composition. Only the
outlines and pentimenti that were
executed with pigments containing
carbon black are visible in IRR. Figures
that have underdrawn outlines of
browns, yellows, oranges, reds, blues,
and greens disappear in the IRR because
these pigments are fairly IR transparent.
This is similar to the technique the artist
used in his refined colored drawings.

The paint layer is in very good condition
except for minor losses, which have
been restored. A long diagonal scratch,
now restored, is located just to the left
of center, extending from the ice into
the sky for about 3 inches. There are
other minor scratches that have been
repaired. The edges of the painting have
expected wear from the frame and some
small losses. A repair about 14 inch wide
is located to the left of the man standing
in front of the building.

The grain of the wood, which must have
become more visible with aging, has
been lightly toned. The monogram is
lightly abraded and may also have some
toning. The painting had a discolored
varnish that was removed at LACMA in
1974. The present acrylic varnish is thin
and moderately saturating.

NOTES

1 A i6oonm interference bandpass filter was used
for the capturing of the infrared reflectogram.

2 For black chalk use, see Ice-Skating in a Village, oil
on wood (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam), Amsterdam
2007, vol. 1, p. 53. For graphite used as underdraw¬
ing, see Wallert 2010.

3 Wallert and Verslype 2009-10.

Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal

Gerrit Adriaensz.

The Nieuwezijds Voorblirgwal with the Gift of Mr - an d Mrs - Edward William Carter

Provenance

Berckheyde

(1638-1698)

Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam, m - 2 °°9-io6.i

ca. 1675

Oil on wood, 1 14^ x 18% in. (37 x 47.6 cm)

Exhibitions

Signed lower right, on canal bulkhead:

References

Gerrit Berck Hey de

U sing light and shadow and the sweeping walls of
the canal, Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde directs
attention to the recently completed Town Hall of
Amsterdam, the magnificent edifice shining above the
shadowed buildings in TheNieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the
Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam. Built on the Dam
Square, the commercial center of the city, the Town Hall was
begun in 1648 under the direction of Jacob van Campen
(1596-1657); inaugurated in 1655, it was not completed until
after 1665. The city's first monumental building designed in
the classical style and incorporating freestanding sculptures
and sculptural reliefs both inside and out, it physically
and iconographically proclaimed Amsterdam's primacy in
politics as well as commerce. The building, which the Dutch
poet Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679) called the Eighth
Wonder of the World, captured the imagination of the city's
residents and visitors, who extolled Amsterdam's prosper¬
ity, trade, and industry. 2 Cosimo III de' Medici (1642-1723),
grand duke of Tuscany, who visited Amsterdam in 1668 and
purchased a painting of the Town Hall by Jan van der
Heyden (1637-1712), noted in his journal: “Visitors behold¬
ing [the new Town Hall] for the first time marvel at the
sight. It seems as if all four corners of the earth have yielded
their bounty for the sake of its enrichment to deliver their
most precious and wondrous treasures to its Harbour.'' 8

The Town Hall (the present Royal Palace) was the
subject of numerous paintings by Berckheyde and his
contemporaries. 4 The most popular view was that of the east
fagade on the Dam, the broad open square on which the
Weigh House and the Nieuwe Kerk are also located. In The
Town Hall on the Dam, Amsterdam, 1693 (Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, inv. no SK-C-101), Berckheyde exaggerated the
scale of the monument by isolating the magnificent sunlit
building against the blue sky so that it dominates the
square and the figures in the shadows of the foreground. 1
Typically, Berckheyde was more concerned with the archi¬
tecture and space than with the activity on the square.

The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree
Markets in Amsterdam depicts the south side and the rear of
the Town Hall. The best vantage point to achieve this view
was from the south, looking north along the Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal; 6 Berckheyde probably observed the scene
from the former Weessluis, the small bridge that crossed the
Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal between the Sint-Luciensteeg
and the Rosmarijnsteeg. From there the broad quay on the
left and the gentle curve of the canal provided an unhindered
view of the massive Town Hall looming over the smaller,
older buildings. An anonymous drawing from about 1610 to
1620 reveals that this view was admired even before the
construction of the new Town Hall. 7 Indeed, photographs
made in the late nineteenth century testify to its continuing
appeal. 8 In 1884 the canal, which once connected the Singel

to Amsterdam's active port on the IJssel, was filled in.

A tram now transports passengers along the former canal
between the Spui and the Centraal Station.

The earliest known rendering of the Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal with the new Town Hall is a drawing made
from the same vantage point about 1665 by Berckheyde's
contemporary Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten (1622-1666)
(Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Collectie Atlas Splitgerber, image
file 010001000680). The drawing shows the Town Hall still
under construction, with scaffolding surrounding the
cupola and the sculptures of Atlas and the two Virtues not
yet mounted on the roof. A drawing by Berckheyde of the
same view with the finished Town Hall (fig. 2.1) is probably
the original sketch he made on location and later used in
his studio in Haarlem for the present painting and three of
the four other versions of the subject. The precision and
repetition of the major compositional elements in the differ¬
ent versions suggest that Berckheyde employed a mechanical
means to transfer the design from the drawing to the
paintings. The absence of a grid and the variation in scale of
the different versions probably indicate, as Jan Peeters has
suggested, that the artist used lenses to project an image of
the drawing on the canvas or panel. 8

The Carter picture is one of five paintings in which
Berckheyde represented, with variations, the Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal with a view of the southwest corner of the Town
Hall. Only one of the paintings is dated— TheNieuwezijds
Voorburgswalwith the Flower Market, Amsterdam, of 1686
(Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid, inv. no. 42 [1959.3]) —
and it is probably the last in the series. 10 Berckheyde's
interest in accurately recording the architecture makes it
possible to suggest the chronological order of the paintings
by the architectural changes along the east side of the canal,
where the wooden buildings and stepped fagades were
gradually replaced by taller brick buildings with long-necked
gables. 11 The earliest paintings are probably those in Saint
Petersburg (The State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg,
inv. no. re-958) and Amsterdam (fig. 2.2), in which changes
from the Beerstraten drawing are evident. The Carter
painting and the version formerly with Frederik Muller,
Amsterdam (location unknown), closely follow Berckheyde's
sketch, which he apparently made to update the composi¬
tion. 12 Like the sketch, both paintings include the tall
building fifth from the right on the east side of the canal
that replaced the small house represented in the earlier
versions. The Carter painting relates to the sketch in the
arrangement of the boats along the side of the canal and the
lower perspective, which gives the Town Hall greater monu¬
mentally than in the earlier versions.

Berckheyde carefully articulated and varied the
reflections of the Town Hall and other buildings and trees
in the canal in each painting. The changes that he made in

Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam

the light, vantage point, and details in the five versions
indicate his interest in spatial relationships. Light plays an
important role thematically as well as compositionally.

With the exception of the Madrid version, in which the sun¬
light is cast from the left, the west, suggesting it is late
afternoon or evening, the paintings, including the Carter
version, portray the light coming from the right, the east.

In these paintings it is morning. Rising in the east, the sun
illuminates the south side of the magnificent Town Hall
and the roofs of the buildings along the east side of the
canal, casting their facades in shadow and filling the wide
quay on the west side with sunlight. The cool gray tonality
and muted definition of details in the shadows create the
impression of an early morning scene.

The Carter painting shares many elements with the
version in the Amsterdam Museum, but the differences are
significant. In the painting in Amsterdam, the sun is
slightly higher than in the Carter painting so that it lights
the tops of the trees, subtly illuminates the facades of the
buildings with reflected light, and creates a diagonal line of
light along the road on the east side of the canal. The crisp
reflections of the buildings in the water are interrupted by
a boat unloading supplies that is cutting across the fore¬
ground parallel to the picture plane. By repositioning the
boat and aligning the potted plants along the west side
of the canal and extending the line of boats and deepening
the shadow across the east side of the canal in the Carter
painting, Berckheyde opened the foreground and created
a more dramatic image that emphasizes the sweep of the
canal toward the sunlit Town Hall, the reflection of which
forms a strong vertical accent. Sunlight draws attention
to the distant bridge over which a horse-drawn cart travels,
probably returning from the Weigh House on the Dam.

In the Thyssen-Bornemisza painting, Berckheyde repeated

the open foreground, but by shifting the light and incorpo¬
rating the tall trees that he had earlier suppressed, he
framed the illuminated buildings along the east side of the
canal and their reflections in the still canal.

Although secondary to Berckheyde’s interest in archi¬
tecture and space. The Nieuwezijds Voorhurgwal with the
Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam and the other versions of
the scene accurately suggest the activity of the canal. The
quay on the west side was the location of the flower and tree
markets, which took place every Monday during the spring
and summer. 13 According to an eighteenth-century source,
which notes that the flower and tree markets were more
than one hundred years old, merchants were allowed to
set up the markets Sunday afternoon after three o’clock. 14
The position of the sun on the right side of the painting
indicates that the scene takes place on Monday morning.
The tree market sold various kinds of young trees produced
by grafting and grown in peat in the vicinity of Alkmaar
and Beverwyk and then brought to Amsterdam by barge.
Just north of the tree market was the flower market. On the
shaded east side of the canal was the pipe market. A canal
barge provided daily service between Amsterdam and Gouda,
where the clay pipes were made.

Berckheyde’s five versions of the painting indicate the
success of the image. Like his views of the facade of the Town
Hall, they celebrate Amsterdam as the major commercial
center of the world. Although not visible, in the pediment
on the back of the building, beneath the sculpture of
Atlas supporting the globe, is a marble relief by the Flemish
sculptor Artus (Arnoldus) Quellinus (1609-1668) that
portrays the continents paying homage to Amsterdam. On
either side stand Temperance and Vigilance, safeguarding
not only the ships at sea but also the local merchants along
the Nieuwezijds Voorhurgwal.

Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorhurgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.1 Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde, View of the
Flower Market (aka View of theNieuwezijds Voorburgwal
with the Town Hall in Amsterdam), ca. 1670-75.
Graphite, partially strengthened with pen and ink,
6% x 10% in. (17 x 27.7 cm). Koninklijk
Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Amsterdam
(inv. no. KOG-AA-2-13-261)

Fig. 2.2 Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal with the Flower Market, ca. 1660-80. Oil on
canvas, 17% x 24 in. (45 x 61 cm). Amsterdam Museum
(inv. no. SA 7455)

Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR2.1 Raking-light photograph of painting
showing textures

Fig. TR2.2 Infrared reflectogram

The wood panel is approximately 14
inch thick with bevels on all sides
except the top. The central area of the
bottom edge of the painting has lost
approximately kL6th inch of wood and
paint. The panel is in good condition
and it is planar.

The panel has a fairly thin, dark red-
brown ground that affects the tonality
of the painting, and paints vary from
thin, dark-colored translucent paints to
opaque lights. Thick paint shows
brushstrokes. Architectural details, such
as the surrounds of the windows on the
Town Hall, are in relief. The thick
varnish obscures much of the liveliness
of the surface, but a photograph taken
with raking light gives some sense of
the textures (fig. TR2.1).

X-radiography and IRR(fig. TR2.2)
revealed both underdrawing and
numerous pentimenti. The underdraw¬
ing in the buildings is composed of
thin, dark, and fairly solid lines and
could have been executed with any of
the following: graphite pencil, 1
metalpoint, pen, or brush with medium

containing carbon-black pigment. 2
However, because there is no evidence
of perspective guidelines or vanishing
points in the underdrawing, the
composition may also have been trans¬
ferred from a drawing. 3 The artist
adjusted the roof, chimneys, and the
figure of Atlas on the Town Hall with
dense paint, which is visible even to
the unaided eye.

The most significant changes show that
Berckheyde reduced the initially larger
size of the Town Hall and shifted the
perspective slightly. These pentimenti
are dark and appear to be brushed
applications of paint that contains
carbon-black pigment. 4 However, we
were unable to determine just how
far the artist developed the earlier
composition before abandoning it. Did
he just apply thin, dark washes that
were part of the underdrawing stage or
were these dark areas oil paint?

Judging from its appearance in the
X-radiograph and IRR, at one time the
figure of Atlas had a greater hunch and
a smaller globe on its back. Below
and to either side of Atlas there were
originally two smaller but similarly

sized sculptures; the one on the left was
painted out when the artist made the
building smaller (figs. TR2.3,2.4). 5
There was a stepped roof on the small
building on the far side of the Town
Hall, also visible in IRR. The domed
cupola was initially larger and posi¬
tioned farther to the right, suggesting
that the artist’s view was originally
closer to the building. The shape of the
cupola was also slightly different, 6 and
the chimneys on the roofline were
initially larger, corresponding with the
earlier cupola.

Berckheyde applied light blue paint
for the sky, leaving reserves for the
buildings. The buildings in shadow
along the far side of the canal were
painted with thin, translucent, dark-
to-light scumbles; thick, opaque details
were applied over dark-colored paint.

It is the dark ground showing through
the translucent paints that creates the
rich shadows. The sunlit architecture of
the Town Hall is described with dense
yellow paint applied over the dark

Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam

Fig.TR.2.3 Detail

Fig. TR2.4 IRR detail showing removal of the
sculpture on the lower left below Atlas and changes
in the roofline at the upper right

ground. The gray shadows and details
on the building were applied over the
yellow paint. A layer of dark gray
applied over a layer of light gray paint
creates the illusion of sunlight striking
the glass of the windows.

The buildings in the background, the
bridge, and the pavement in the left fore¬
ground were almost finished when
the trees were painted. The X-radiograph
reveals that the building on the left side
of the canal was finished before the tall
chimney was added over the roof
tiles. The staffage was added when the
cityscape was close to completion.

The surface coating is synthetic and
appears hazy and greenish in ultraviolet
light. Thick varnish makes it difficult to
truly assess the condition of the painting.
The surface has some abrasion, and
there are a number of restored losses
along the top edge. The wood grain,
which had become more apparent, has
been toned to be less noticeable.

The signature appears reinforced to
some degree.

NOTES

1 Berckheyde used graphite in the drawing View
of the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Town Hall in
Amsterdam, collection Atlas Van Eck, Koninklijk
Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Amsterdam, inv.
no. W13-261.

2 Lines produced by black chalk or charcoal lines
would be powdery in texture, and this was not
characteristic of the lines in this underdrawing.

3 Jan Peeters suggests that the four Town Hall
paintings by Berckheyde, all very close with only
simple differences in staffage, may have been
transferred from one drawing via camera obscura.
This might explain the size differences and why
there are no transfer indications (grids, blackened
backing, etc.) on the drawing itself. Amsterdam

1 997 , p- 97-

4 Carbon black appears dark in the IRR.

5 The sculpture on the left is present also in the
drawing at the Koninklijk Oudheidkundig
Genootschap; see n. 1 above.

6 The shape might correspond to the cupola’s
being surrounded by a scaffold.

Berckheyde, The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Anthonie van Borssom

(1630/31-1677)

Panoramic Landscape near Rhenen
with theHuis terLede, ca. 1666
Oil on canvas, 20 x 2 S 15 /i 6 in.
(50.8x65.9 cm)

Signed lower right: A Bor/[illegible] 16 [illegible]

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.2

F ormerly attributed to Adriaen van de Velde (1636-

1672), Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis ter
Lede is now accepted as a work by the Amsterdam
landscape painter Anthonie van Borssom. A. B. de Vries and
Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann recommended the attribu¬
tion when the Carters purchased the painting in 1971. In
1981 the authors of A Mirror ofNature were the first to publish
the painting as a work by Van Borssom. The discovery of
a partial signature on the lower right of the Carter landscape
confirms the attribution to Van Borssom. 1

The panoramic view of a broad river valley from the
prospect of a hill and the tightly rendered style of the Carter
painting compare closely with Van Borssom's signed paint¬
ing River Landscape near Cleves with Fortress Schenkenschans, High
andLowElten, about 1666 (Museum Kunstpalast, Dusseldorf,
inv. no. M 121). In the Carter painting. Van Borssom marks
the progression across the landscape into the distance by
alternating patterns of light and shadow, a feature typical of
his paintings of the 1660s, when he was influenced by the
panoramic landscapes of Philips Koninck (1619-1688). In his
two paintings of Schenkenschanz, located near Emmerich,
where the Rhine splits into the Waal and the Lower Rhine,
light draws the viewer's attention from the sunlit fore¬
ground with cattle to the distant river as it sweeps through
the landscape. 2 In the Carter painting, the dark foreground,
the reflection of the river that stretches across the com¬
position, and the horizontal layering of clouds accentuate
the broad panorama. Narrow horizontal striations painted
thinly with a soft brush in subtle shades of gray, green,
and blue define the middle and distant landscape and sug¬
gest light filtered by the passing clouds. Dark trees and
shadows intersect the panorama and lead the eye from the
foreground into the distance, where a castle stands above
the flatland to the right of center, and the village of Kesteren
lies farther left. The single traveler and the small herd of
cattle silhouetted against the river help to tie the foreground
to the distance. Van Borssom further integrated the com¬
position by continuing the diagonal line of the rutted road
from the left foreground through the row of shrubbery
leading to the castle, complemented by the parallel place¬
ment of the tributary of the river on the far rights

The castle in the Carter painting is the Huis ter Lede,
also known as Huis te Lynden. The ancestral home of
the Van Lynden family, it was apparently well known in
the seventeenth century. An engraving of“'t Huys ter Lee”
was published by Christophe Butkens in Les annales
genealogiques de la maison de Lynden and later included in
Abraham Rademaker's Kabinetvan nederlandsche outheden en
gezichten of 1725J

In the seventeenth century, the Huis ter Lede was
owned by the counts of Waldeck-Piermont and Culenborch,
one of whom may have commissioned the painting from
Van Borssom. 5 The artist is known to have depicted at
least one other specific country house, the hunting lodge

Toutenburg in Maartensdijk, located like Huis ter Lede in
the province of Utrecht. 6 Borssom's portrayal of a specific
aristocratic residence in Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with
theHuis ter Lede recalls the late sixteenth-century Flemish
landscape paintings and prints of the seasons by Lucas
van Valckenborch the Elder (ca. 1535-1597)/ which were
followed by the often large paintings by Jan Brueghel the
Elder (1568-1625) of Castle Mariemont for the Archduke
Albrecht and his wife, the Infanta Isabella, joint governors
of the Spanish Netherlands. 8

However, in contrast to the high horizons, imagined
landscapes, and artificial color schemes of the Flemish
examples, which serve as stage sets for genre portraits of the
residents and their entourages enjoying country life,
the low horizon and gentle luminous light that infuses Van
Borssom's composition, as well as the absence of artificial
framing devices or significant staffage, create the naturalis¬
tic impression of an actual flat landscape that stretches
from the foreground far into the distance.

The Huis ter Lede was located near the town of Rhenen
on the Lower Rhine, where the Utrecht hills abruptly end
and the flat landscape of the Neder-Betuwe extends for miles. 9
According to an eighteenth-century pocket travel guide:

“On the west side [traveling from Wageningen to Rhenen]
there is a very high mountain, which is frequently climbed
to gaze out over one of the finest views over the Rhine,
as well as the Neder-Betuwe, and the Rheensche Veenen.'' 10

In the seventeenth century a platform known as the
Koningstafel, or King's Table, was built between Rhenen
and Wageningen on top of the Grebbeberg, which provided
the greatly admired views and could be seen for miles
standing above the flat valley. 11 Frederick V (1596-1632),
elector Palatine, the so-called Winter King who lived in exile
in The Hague and Rhenen, reportedly enjoyed resting
there while hunting on the mountain. The Koningstafel,
represented in 1646-48 by Aelbert Cuyp (1620-1691) in
Two Horsemen on a Ridge (private collection. New York), 12 was
undoubtedly the place from which Van Borssom drew
the view of Huis ter Lede that he later used for the Carter
painting. The village of Ter Lee, which appears to the left
of Huis ter Lede in the Carter landscape, can be seen in the
distance in the Cuyp painting.

Van Borssom's attraction to the view from the
Koningstafel is documented by two drawings. A signed
pencil and wash drawing in the Graphische Sammlungen
der Klassik Stiftung Weimar (inv. no. KK 4801) represents
a view closely related to that in the Carter painting. 11
A second drawing signed by Van Borssom represents a group
of well-dressed men and women who have climbed the
hill to picnic around the Koningstafel and enjoy the famous
view (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.
no. 2005.418.5) 14 in a panoramic landscape that is remarkably
similar to that represented in the Carter painting.

Van Borssom, Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis ter Lede

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR3.1 X-radiograph showing tack holes and the
old rollover edge

The painting is on a medium-weight,
plain-weave canvas lined to a similar
type canvas with an aqueous adhesive.
The stretcher is slightly larger than
the original painting. Tacking margins
have been removed from all but the
bottom edge, where the margin was
folded out and painted to extend
the painting by about 14 to Vz inch. The
X-radiograph reveals some tacking
holes in the margin and a line of loss
(fig. TR3.1). It also reveals cusping
on all sides of the canvas.

The canvas has a thin red ground with
a somewhat thicker gray one on top.

The sky is fairly directly painted with
white, gray, and blue paints. Exami¬
nation of the Van Borssom with infrared
reflectography (IRR) did reveal some

cursory dark lines for the horizon and
the fields (fig. TR3.2). However, most of
these lines were also somewhat visible
in normal light, so it was not possible to
say with certainty that they were
underdrawn. As found in the work of
other seventeenth-century Dutch
landscape painters, such as Esaias van
de Velde (cat. no. 31) and Philips
Koninck (cat. no. 19), Van Borssom may
have been incorporating his under¬
drawn lines into the final painting,
leaving them visible as part of the com¬
position. It was not possible to determine
if the lines were brushed or executed
with a dry medium such as black chalk
or charcoal.

The artist laid out the landscape with
dark, translucent paint and then
developed the forms with local colors
and glazes. The X-radiograph appears
fairly uniform with indistinct forms.

The landscape was almost finished
before the staffage was added. The cows
were laid in with a middle tone of local
color to which the lights and darks were
applied. Dark brown paint was used
for the signature. Only the first part of
the signature is legible.

The painting reads well, although
surface paints show signs of abrasion.
There are scattered restorations,
including a large one in the upper right
corner of the sky about 2 Vz inches in
diameter. There is also some restoration
along the edges, especially at the
bottom. A dark somewhat irregular
crackle pattern exists throughout the

Van Borssom, Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis terLede

Fig. TR3.2 Infrared reflectogram

painting as well as some circular crack
patterns in the sky, where the canvas
was probably impacted from the
reverse. Perimeter stretcher cracks are
also visible. Shallow, vertical waves
visible in raking light suggest that the
painting may have been rolled at
one time. The lining has flattened the
painting to some degree.

The varnish, which is fairly clear and
saturating, appears to be a synthetic. It
has a dense fluorescence in ultraviolet
light that may hide some restoration
toning.

Van Borssom, Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with theHuis terLede

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Ambrosius Bosschaert
the Elder

(1573-1621)

Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge, 1619 Gift of Mr - an d Mrs. Edward W. Carter

Oil on copper, 11 x 9 y 16 in. (27.9 x 23 cm) M - 2003 - 1 ° 8 ' 7

Signed and dated lower right, on the sill: 1 AB1619

A ccording to his daughter Maria, Ambrosius

Bosschaert the Elder died at the home of Frederik
van Schurman (1564-1623) in The Hague in 1621J
The artist had traveled from his home in Breda to the court
city to deliver a blompot (flower pot) to Schurman, wine
steward ( bottelier ) of Prince Maurits, for which he was paid
1,000 guilders. 3 That Schurman was willing to pay such
an exceptionally high fee for the painting reveals the esteem
with which he held the artist, as well as the value he placed
on the subject, a vase of flowers, each of which was so
meticulously rendered that it could be clearly identified
and admired. 1

Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge is one of the most beauti¬
fully painted and best-preserved examples of the perfectly
balanced, symmetrical bouquets that are the hallmark
of Bosschaert’s oeuvre. Executed with orderly layering of
paint and glazes applied to a prepared copper plate with
brushstrokes that seem to melt away, the petals of the tulips
appear like satin, while the delicate, transparent wings
of the dragonfly perched on the yellow iris dissolve against
the sky. Bosschaert carefully defined each blossom, shell,
and insect according to its individual color and form.
Although the flowers within the evenly lit bouquet cast no
shadows, shadows of the glass rummer decorated with
thorn prunts, 5 the shells, and the single carnation are visible
on the ledge. The firm materiality of the bouquet and
objects placed on the ledge contrasts with the soft, atmo¬
spheric rendering of the distant river landscape and sky. The
almost surreal quality of the painting anticipates the paint¬
ings of Rene Magritte (1898-1967) three centuries later.

During the first decades of the seventeenth century,
Bosschaert and a number of his contemporaries, notably Jan
Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625), Jacob de Gheyn II (ca. 1565-
1629), and Roelandt Savery (1576-1639), represented similar,
symmetrical, carefully defined still lifes of flowers on
a ledge either in a niche or against a dark background. The
Carter painting is one of only six known still lifes in which
Bosschaert juxtaposed a bouquet on a ledge against
a cloud-streaked sky and distant landscape, as if, as Lawrence
Goedde has observed, “suggesting its relation to that world
as an epitome of it.” 6 In all but the Carter painting, the
bouquet is framed by an arched window with a view to
a distant landscape (fig. 4.1). 7 There was no precedent in paint¬
ing for representing a bouquet against a distant landscape,
suggesting, as Sam Segal was the first to recognize, that
Bosschaert derived this format from earlier print sources,
such as the more elaborate Vase of Flowers in an Open Niche,
1599, engraved by Hendrik Hondius (1573-ca. 1649) after
a design by Elias Verhulst (before 1570-after 1620). 8

The realistic appearance of Bosschaert’s bouquet is
a conceit. Like his contemporaries, he may have occasionally
painted individual flowers directly from life (especially the
common flowers) but never an assembled bouquet. Indeed,

the actual flowers he depicts in the Carter bouquet, and
others, bloom at different times of the year: the yellow
fritillaria, the tulips, iris, daffodil, and red-and-white
liverwort (a kind of anemone) are harbingers of spring,
while the roses and carnation bloom in mid- to late summer. 1
The precise and independent description of each of the
blossoms, which cast virtually no shadows within the
bouquet, and the repetition of certain flowers in his other
paintings—such as the pink rose in the lower right of
the present picture that reappears in reverse in Bosschaert’s
painting of 1621 in the National Gallery of Art, Washington,
DC (inv. no. 1996.35.1) —suggest that he relied on drawings
or prints of individual flowers as guides. Evidence of under¬
drawing and, in places, pouncing in the Carter painting and
others indicates that he transferred images of individual
flowers and possibly complete compositions onto his panels
(see Technical Report).

Although none is known, Bosschaert probably made
drawings of actual flowers from life but also undoubtedly
relied on naturalistic depictions of flowers in contemporary
florilegia, which both served as models and, at times, were
apparently used for transfer. 10 The most famous of these
were Florilegium, published in Frankfurt in 1612 as a nursery
catalogue by the Amsterdam merchant of exotica Emanuel
Sweerts (1552-1612),® and HortusFloridus, published in
Utrecht in 1614 by Crispijn van de Passe II (1589-1670). 12 Both
books enjoyed enormous success and were republished
numerous times. Praised for their lifelike illustrations based
on direct observation of living or recently cut flowers,
florilegia advertised a merchant’s stock or celebrated the
beauty and diversity of a famous garden. 13 For his commem¬
orative album, Hortus Eystettensis (Nuremberg, 1613), for
example, the prince-bishop of Eichstatt, Johann Konrad von
Gemmingen (1561-1612), had live flowers from his garden
sent in boxes each week to artists, who made beautiful
watercolor drawings that were later translated into prints
showing the various stages of a flower. 14

By the early seventeenth century, the desire for scien¬
tifically accurate depictions of plants and flowers from Asia,
the Americas, and Africa was widespread. Scientists, collec¬
tors, and courtiers throughout Europe eagerly sought
and exchanged written and visual information about new
species of plants and actual specimens for their gardens.
Middelburg, one of the major ports of the Dutch East India
Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC),
was an important garden center at the beginning of the seven¬
teenth century, when Bosschaert was in the city. 15 Distinct
from the medieval gardens in which plants were grown
for medicinal purposes, the famous botanical gardens estab¬
lished in Middelburg by the botanist Matthaeus Lobelius
(1538-1616) 16 and at the University of Leiden by Carolus
Clusius (Charles de l’Ecluse, 1526-1609), 17 were extensions
of Kunst- und Wunderkammers that sought to include the

Bosschaert the Elder, Bouquet of Flowers on aLedge

most exotic and rare specimens. The tulip, which is today
so closely associated with Holland, was first imported
from Turkey to Europe in the mid-sixteenth century and
popularized by Clusius.

The mysterious ability of a tulip bulb to change from
year to year (later attributed to a virus) made these flowers
among the most prized possessions of collectors. By 1623,
just two years after Frederik van Schurman paid Bosschaert
1,000 guilders for his “flower pot” and when the average
annual income in the Netherlands was 150 guilders, a single
bulb of the highly prized Semper Augustus sold for 1,000
guilders. By 1637 the price had risen to 10,000 guilders,
equivalent to the cost of a house on a canal in the center of
Amsterdam with gardens and coach house. 18 In the same
year, however, the speculation in tulips had reached such
a height that the inevitable happened: the market crashed.
Although the collapse of the tulip market financially ruined
many speculators—among others, the painter Jan van
Goyen (1596-1656)—the fascination with the tulip and other
flowers continued throughout the century.

The number of similar bouquets painted by Bosschaert
and his contemporaries attests to their enduring popularity
and suggests that realistic images of flowers and shells
accurately rendered in three dimensions and natural colors
were themselves sources of pleasure and could substitute
for the actual objects. Referring to a variegated bouquet
he had recently begun in 1606, Bosschaert's contemporary
Jan Breughel the Elder wrote to his patron Federico (1564-
1631), Cardinal Borromeo, archbishop of Milan, “[the paint¬
ing] will succeed admirably: not only because it is painted
from life but also because of the beauty and rarity of various
flowers which are unknown and have never been seen here
before.” 19 Although common today, in the early seventeenth
century, the tulips, yellow fritillaria, 20 red-and-white-
striped liverwort, and the daffodil depicted in the Carter
painting were grown from bulbs imported from Asia.

The black-and-white Conus marmoreus shell came from East
India, and the yellow Polymitapicta from Cuba. 21 Bosschaerfs
contemporaries marveled not only at the rarity of the objects
but also at the skill it took to depict the flowers, shells,
and the details of dewdrops and insects so realistically. Stories
of ancient artists who could deceive animals with the realism
of their images were well known. The delicate dragonfly
perched on the yellow iris and the droplets of moisture on the
leaves in Bosschaerfs painting indeed recall the story of
Zeuxis, who painted with such dexterity that he was able to
fool the birds who flew to his painting in search of fruit. 22

In the past, referencing biblical verses and emblems
such as Roemer Visscher's 1614 print representing tulips,

Een dwaes en zijngeltzijn haestghescheijden (A Fool and His Money

Are Soon Parted) (fig. 4.2), scholars have interpreted flower
still lifes such as Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge as warnings
about the transience of earthly life 23 and the vanity of
collecting tulips and shells. 24 Scholars have deconstructed
bouquets and interpreted each individual flower, insect,
and dewdrop emblematically, in an effort to show that
the intention of the artist was to instruct the viewer to stop
and contemplate God, because the life of man, like that of
flowers, is brief. The negative emblematic reading of
individual flowers and insects is, however, questionable
when no specific inscription or reference is included. 21

In his preface to Florilegium, Sweerts reflects a differ¬
ent, more positive attitude. Acknowledging that man's life,
like that of flowers, is brief, he praises God's greatness in
providing such wondrous flowers for the enjoyment of man.
Sweerts notes that he was motivated to produce the book so as

to display with it, to all eyes, the infinite power of
God, in which one can look as in a mirror, and thereby
be moved to understand how short and trivial life is;
and on the other hand, how great is God's Mercy, since
he shares with us worthless creatures His manifold
beautiful, wonderful creations, the flowers, for our
refreshment and comfort. These give us to know that
man's life is nothing else than a flower of the fields,
which withers soon.... Through them shall we be
awakened and warned to laud and praise his Divine
goodness. 26

One often finds references made by both Protestants
and Catholics to the two books by which one knows God—
the Bible and nature. The Garden of Eden and flowers
are said to be expressions of God's creation. The title page of
Hortus Eystettensis, for example, refers to the bishop's view
of the garden and the book as a living or pictorial version of
Psalm 150, a tribute to the creator of all things.® In paint¬
ings in which the bouquet is set against an extensive
landscape, the artist seems to extend the metaphor to the
world beyond.

The acquisition of Bosschaert's paintings had much to
do with the desire to possess the beautiful flowers and
shells that appear in them but that were difficult and expen¬
sive to own. Like the Hortus Eystettensis, an expression of
Johann Konrad von Gemmingen's passion for beautiful
flowers, both common and exotic, and his desire to extend
their presence beyond their brief life, Bosschaert's bouquets
were a way of celebrating and preserving the beauty of the
flowers through the dark winter days.

Bosschaert the Elder, Bouquet of Flowers on aLedge

Fig. 4-1

Fig. 4.2

Fig. 4.1 Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder, Vase of
Flowers in a Window, ca. 1618. Oil on panel,

25 Ya x 18 Vs in. (64 x 46 cm). Mauritshuis. Bequest
of Arnoldus Andries des Tombe, The Hague, 1903
(inv. no. 679)

Fig. 4.2 Roemer Visscher (1547-1620), Fen dwaes
enzijngeltzijn haestghescheijden (A Fool and His Money
Are Soon Separated), 1614. Engraving, 3% x z 3 /s in.
(9.5 x 6 cm). Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no.
BI- 1893 - 3539 - 11 )

Bosschaert the Elder, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR4.1 Reverse of the copper panel with some
oxidation, as well as adhesive from old labels and tape

Fig. TR4.2 Digital micrograph (loox magnification)
of the lower left flower of the blue spray of
geraniums showing the blue base layer glazed with
violet lake

The support is a sheet of copper with
a thickness of about ki6th inch. Because
the smooth, hard metal support does
not absorb the oil medium, it provides
a rich, enamel-like surface that is an
excellent base for painting fine details.
The support is in good condition. The
plate has slight undulations but
appears quite flat under normal viewing
conditions. The lower right corner was
bent at one time and restored (fig. TR4.1).

The ground appears to be gray and
thinly applied. White paint containing
mostly lead white was applied over the
gray ground from the upper edge of
the painting to at least the top of the
ledge. Over this white layer the artist
applied the blue paint of the sky, which
contains smalt and possibly other
blue pigments, leaving reserves for the
white clouds. He applied thin blue
and green paint layers for the trees, city,

and water. The ledge was laid in with
gray-brown paint containing ocher
and umber pigments, which was worked
up with shadows and highlights.

The bouquet is remarkable for its fine
details and the layering of paint,
including glazes and scumbles, which
require a deep understanding of colors
and pigments. The paint was mostly
applied in thin layers ranging from
almost opaque to translucent. For exam¬
ple, the tiny blue flowers (geraniums)
at the upper left were laid in with an
opaque blue-colored paint over the
painted sky. The blue of the flower was
subsequently glazed with a translucent
violet lake that was applied thickly
for the dark shadows but more thinly to
create the transition to medium and
light tones. While these layers of paint
are not readily obvious to the unaided
eye, magnification helps to distinguish
them (fig. TR4.2). Brushstrokes are only
evident in some of the pasty paints:
for example, the whitest parts of the
large white rose or the light-colored
stripes of the large tulip at the left. The
thorns on the rose stems and the legs
of the insects were painted with very
fine brushes.

The complexity of the painting can be
better understood by looking closely at
the individual flowers. For example,
Bosschaert painted the opaque
standards of the yellow iris with a thin
base layer of mostly lead-tin yellow
mixed with lead white over the layer of
blue sky. Then he applied thicker paint
with proportionately more yellow
pigment using a variety of brushstrokes
and even little dots to give form and
volume. Light blue or violet paint
spotted along the edges of the iris’s
standards defines the fluting that is
typical of this flower. Finally, a rust-
orange glaze achieves the fine modeling
from dark to light. The blue sky shows
through the transparent falls of the
iris. The veins of the falls were painted
with a rust-colored translucent paint
with tiny touches of light violet paint.

Numerous colors of paint, direct and
layered, and various brushstrokes create
the large striped tulip on the left.

The artist applied thin white paint that

Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge

Fig. TR4.3 IRR detail of the lower right corner with
signature, showing damage to the copper panel and
retouching

transmits the blue of the sky and dense
stripes of white, yellow, and crimson.

He scumbled light pink and glazed red
lake so thinly over the thin white layer
that the blue color of the sky under¬
neath visually affects the final color,
which verges on violet. The crimson
paint applied more densely along the
edges of the petals was feathered with
the tip of a brush and is visible only
with magnification. Nevertheless, in
normal viewing circumstances, the
feathering helps to create the texture
and character of this tulip.

The cream-colored paint describing the
large white rose was laid in so thinly
over the blue sky that again the
underlying blue affects the overall tone.
Denser white and violet-pink paints
applied in minute, distinct strokes
created the highlights and mid-tones
over the first thin layer of paint. The
soft bluish undersides of the petals were
created with a thin application of paint
containing a black pigment that
was then scumbled with white. Finally,
brownish glazes were used for the
deeper shadows. Light blue paint visible

along some outlines of the petals creates
soft curves and adjusts the shape of
the flower. At the center of the flower
fine dots of lead-tin yellow indicate
stamen tips. In intense light the creamy
white form glows with pinks and soft
blues. The central red-striped liverwort
has a base paint layer of mostly lead-
white pigment. Over the white layer the
artist painted stripes with red paint
containing as the primary pigment
vermilion-cinnabar, and he finished the
flower with glazes of red lake and blue
pigments. The center of the flower
probably contains red lake. The stamens
are deep blue with dots of white on
their tips.

The green leaves at the center of the
bouquet have a first opaque layer that
contains at least the pigments green
earth, ochers, and lead-tin yellow. To
model the forms and paint details the

artist used translucent yellow and
blue-green paint. He painted the foliage
after most of the flowers were well
along, but the edges of the flowers were
adjusted in some places over the foliage.

The dark-marbled shell was painted
over the gray paint of the ledge with
off-white or light gray paint. As he did
with other objects in the still life, the
artist sensitively observed the patterns
on the surface of the shell, noting
at least two different tones of brown
(both umber per X-ray fluorescence
spectrometry). With white strokes he
added details and texture, while with
warm glazes he modeled the form
with shadows.

The condition of the painting is good.
Ultraviolet light showed some scattered
restorations at the edges of the picture
and in the landscape, but few resto¬
rations are in the still life itself. There is
fine craquelure in certain paints. For
example, the red-violet center of the
liverwort, a translucent, medium-rich
film that no doubt contains a lake
pigment, has a fine pattern of slightly
lifted cracks.

Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge

Fig. TR4.4 Construction lines revealed in the IRR

Fig. TR4.5 This IRR detail shows fine underdrawn
lines around the bottom of the vase and in the buds.
Some lines suggest floral shapes that were not
developed into paint.

The lower right corner of the copper
panel was bent at one time and restored;
the diagonal bend is about 3 A inch
into the picture from the lower right
corner. The signature is abraded; the
date, which falls over the bend, is
very abraded and reinforced. There
appears to be some original paint, but
only with IRR can one make out the
date as 1619 (fig. TR.4.3).

The thick varnish, which appears semi¬
glossy and uniform, fluoresces strongly
in ultraviolet light and mutes the
restorations described above. The
painting was sprayed with an acrylic
varnish in 1982.

The infrared reflectogram 1 was very
light and lacking in contrast due to the
high IR reflectivity of the ground that

contains calcium carbonate. 2 This made
it somewhat difficult to see anything in
the image. However, when the contrast
and darkness were modified using
Photoshop, construction lines, under¬
drawing, pentimenti, and, most
interestingly, what looked like tiny
black dots of pouncing were revealed.

The construction lines (fig. TR4.4)
consist of a centralized vertical line,
bisected by two horizontal lines that
describe the ledge on which the vase sits. 3
The vertical line is thicker and more
powdery-looking than the two horizon¬
tal lines and may have been executed
in black chalk or charcoal. The two
horizontal lines are sharper, thinner,
and more even in width, perhaps done
with graphite pencil or metalpoint
(a pen and liquid medium containing
carbon-black pigment could also have
produced such lines). A straightedge
was certainly used to draw these lines.

The IRR showed underdrawing in some
of the flowers and in and around the
bottom of the vase itself. In some cases
these lines depict flowers that were not
translated into paint (fig. TR4.5). The
lines are similar in character (though
a little thinner) to the horizontal
construction lines. They are uniform in
width and may have been executed
in pen. However, their unwavering and
deliberate character, without correc¬
tions, also suggests the possibility that
the drawing was transferred.

When the contrast of the IRR was
increased, tiny dark dots that looked like
pouncing were noted around the petals
of the large white rose, just left of center
(fig. TR4.6). Pouncing is a transfer
technique in which tiny perforations
are made in the lines of a drawing. The

Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge

Fig. TR4.6 IRR detail of the white rose. When the
contrast in the IRR was increased, pouncing was
revealed around the outlines of some petals.

drawing is then placed over a prepared
canvas or panel, and a pigment is dusted
through the holes to transfer the
design. The dots of pigment can be
connected with something more
permanent such as a pen or brushed
line, and any excess pigment dust
brushed away. Using the IRR, other
sections of the painting were examined
for evidence of pouncing, but it appeared
to be most apparent in the rose. Also the
lead-white paint of the rose is particu¬
larly transparent in IRR, and this may
be why the pouncing is more evi¬
dent here. However, there is also the
possibility that the pouncing exists only
in the rose, suggesting that the more
complex flower was transferred into the
composition.

Like many still-life painters, Bosschaert
probably used florilegia for his detailed
and precise floral paintings. 4 No draw¬
ings by Bosschaert the Elder are extant;
however, if he used drawings to transfer
his designs, this might explain why

none survived. Such working drawings
could be used multiple times and would
not have had much aesthetic value for
early collectors due to the perforations,
distortions, and pigment residues.

In any case, the repetition of almost
identical flowers in his paintings
(sometimes reversed) suggests that he
used prints or drawings to guide him.

The IRR also showed a pentimento of
a dark butterfly/moth, located at the top
center of the composition, just above
and to the left of the red-and-white
striped anemone. It is likely that the
butterfly may have been developed fur¬
ther than the underdrawing stage
because it has been given a wash that
contained carbon black—before it was
abandoned and covered with green
fronds.

NOTES

1 The IR reflectogram was taken using the i4oonm
interference bandpass filter.

2 X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) confirmed
the presence of calcium throughout the painting,
suggesting CaC03 in a ground.

3 Vertical and horizontal placement lines have also
been found in floral still-life paintings on copper
by Bosschaert’s son, Bosschaert the Younger
(1609-1645). Murray and Groen 1994, p. 13.

4 Florilegia were reference books, filled with
detailed drawings and images of rare and
beautiful flowers. For descriptions of the use of
florilegia by Dutch painters, see Washington 1999,
p. 25, Murray and Groen 1994, pp. 7-20, and
Pennisi 2007.

Bosschaert, Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge

Jan Dirksz. Both

(ca. 1618-1652)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Landscape with a Draftsman,
ca. 1645-50

Oil on canvas, 40% x 46% in.
(103.5x117.8 cm)

Signed lower left: JBoth

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.3

S ilhouetted against still water in which trees are
reflected, an artist sketches as a man leans over his
shoulder and gestures toward a stone bridge
with a tower and an ancient portal. Warm light diffused
through the landscape illuminates the distant hills. To the
right of the artist, a shepherd in a sheepskin vest sits
on a rock, his attention drawn to a herder leading a bull and
speaking to a man seated on a heavily laden donkey. The
warm light, distant mountains, stone bridge, and staffage
remove the scene from the local experience of the
Netherlands and, instead, evoke the Roman Campagna.

Jan Both probably painted Landscape with a Draftsman
in Utrecht in the mid- to late 1640s following his return
from Italy in 1642. The painting is a transitional work, exe¬
cuted just before he established his mature style about 1650.
The tight brushwork, compact shape of the central tree,
and the dramatic contrast between the massive dark forms
on one side of the composition and the light-filled distance
reflect his earlier style, while the sensitive treatment of
light and atmosphere herald his later paintings. After about
1650, the date of the similarly composed Italian Landscape
with Ferry (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-52),
Both's paintings exhibit looser brushwork and a preference
for trees with open foliage and prominent detail in the fore¬
ground. 1 The progression from foreground to background
is also more gradual than in his earlier paintings.

In 1662 the Dutch writer Cornelis de Bie (1627-ca. 1711)
called Both a painter of landscapes “bien ordonees.'' 2 He
recognized that Both's compositions in which the figures
appear to be casually placed within their natural environ¬
ment, as if caught in a chance view of everyday life, were, in
fact, carefully orchestrated. Boths approach to composition,
as his biographer the German artist and writer Joachim
von Sandrart (1606-1688) noted, was closely related to that
of his slightly older contemporary, the French painter
Claude Lorrain (1604-1682), whom he had known in Rome
and with whom he had shared the commission to paint
landscapes for the Buen Retiro Palace in Madrid. 3 The com¬
positional structure of Landscape with a Draftsman —the deep
view to the light-filled distance framed by tall trees cast
in shadow in the foreground—is similar to early works by
Claude that Both would have known in Rome, such as
Landscape with the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, about 1639. 4
Also like Claude, Both used light and staffage to define the
specific time of day—here the late afternoon (or early evening).

From the example of Claude as well as the Haarlem
painters, especially Esaias van de Velde (1587-1630), Both
developed the device of visually moving the viewer through
the landscape by carefully positioning the staffage. Whereas
Claude and others employed lines of figures to direct the
viewer. Both, like Van de Velde, hyphenated the movement

by placing his figures at critical points, letting their postures
suggest direction. In the Carter painting, the draftsman
and his companion, who face away from the viewer, help to
connect the dark foreground to the softly lit bridge and
distant mountains. Strong sunlight draws attention back to
the foreground, where a shepherd seated on a rock directs
the viewer's gaze to the travelers, whose positions indicate
they have met in passing. The bright red sleeve and hunched
posture of the man on the donkey points toward the road,
which continues behind the trees and reappears in the
distance, where it crosses a bridge. Both probably appropri¬
ated the device of the stone bridge from Claude, who
frequently included the horizontal motif in his paintings of
the late 1630s and 1640s. By reorienting the bridge on
a diagonal, however. Both suggests the continuation of the
road, linking the foreground and background. 5

Both's figures are larger and compositionally more
significant than Claude's. They also differ in character.
Rather than Claude's arcadian shepherds, here contempo¬
rary travelers casually conduct their business. The carefully
observed postures and expressions of the figures establish
a sense of intimacy and psychological rapport. Both derived
his figure type from the images of Roman peasant scenes
painted by Pieter van Laer (1599-1642). He was also strongly
influenced by his older brother Andries (ca. 1612-1641),
who had provided the figures in Jan's landscapes for the
Buen Retiro in 1640-41. Jan's figures are typically stockier
and their facial types less wizened than those by his brother. 6

Jan Both painted the subject of an artist sketching
a number of times throughout his career. 7 In the Los Angeles
painting, the position of the artist seen from the back invites
the viewer to share the distant vista that has captured his
attention. Although images of artists sketching also appear
in the work of earlier artists. Both was probably inspired
again by the example of Claude, who included a similar
figure of an artist sketching alongside bystanders gesturing
toward the distance in Artist Studying from Nature (fig. 5.1). 8
Both artists were referring to actual practices and, perhaps,
wanted to suggest the veracity of their painted views.
Sandrart, who lived in Rome between 1629 and 1635, describes
expeditions into the countryside with Claude Lorrain and
Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665) "to paint or to draw landscapes
directly from nature.'' 9 Although typically artists in the
seventeenth century returned to their studios to paint,
a drawing by Jan Asselijn (after 1610-1652), a Dutch painter
who was active in Rome between 1635 and about 1642, depicts
a painter at an easel set outdoors (Kupferstichkabinett,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. KdZ 144).

The msountainous landscape and ancient bridge in
Landscape with a Draftsman is generally reminiscent of
the Roman Campagna, but it is, nevertheless, a fantasy. 16

Both, Landscape with a Draftsman

Both based the bridge with the cylindrical tower and portal
on the ancient Ponte Lucano and the Tomb of the Plautii
located on the Via Tiburtina, the road that connects Rome
with Tivoli. The ancient Roman bridge that spans the
Aniene River was a well-known landmark approximately
sixteen miles from Rome. Beginning in the seventeenth
century, it was a popular subject for vedutisti (painters dedi¬
cated to capturing views of the city) and landscape painters
alike. 11 The actual appearance of the bridge, however, is
reversed in the Carter painting. Working in Utrecht after his
return from Rome, Both probably based his image of the
bridge on a print, such as that by Israel Silvestre (1621-1691)
(The British Museum, London, inv. no. 2005, U.22), which
represents a similar prospect and condition of the portal. 3
Ann Sutherland Harris notes, however, that the setting
differs from the real landscape, which is much flatter than
in Both's painting, and that the proportions of the bridge
are also different: the actual portal is stockier and the bridge
is arched. 3

The general composition of Landscape with a Draftsman
is repeated in at least three other paintings, including
one very close variant (fig. 5.2) that James D. Burke consid¬
ered to have been painted by Both after he completed the Los
Angeles canvas. 14 A smaller painting on copper by Both, Italian
Landscape with the Ponte Molle (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,
inv. no. SK-A-51), also appears to represent the Ponte Lucano
and Tomb of the Plautii approached from the direction
of Rome, the most popular view among artists. The tall,
feathery trees suggest that the painting dates slightly later
than the Carter landscape. A painting considered to be by
a follower of Both repeats the same composition but includes
different figures in the right foreground. 3

Both's paintings enjoyed great popularity in Italy
and the Netherlands during and following his lifetime.
The basic composition of the Carter painting was apparently
well known and inspired paintings and drawings by
his contemporaries and followers, especially Thomas Wijck
(1616/24-1677) and Willem de Heusch (1625-1692). 16

Both, Landscape with a Draftsman

Fig. 5-1

Fig. 5.2

Fig. 5.1 Claude Lorrain (1604-1682), Artist Studying
from Nature, 1639. Oil on canvas, 30% x 39% in.

(78.1 x 101 cm). Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio, gift of
Mary Ftanna (inv. no. 1946.102)

Fig. 5.2 Jan Dirksz. Both, Landscape with a River, ca.
1645-50. Oil on canvas, 40% x 4 6 Yz in. (104 x 118 cm).
Location unknown

Both, Landscape with a Draftsman

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR5.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR5.2 Digital micrograph (loox magnification)
of the inner wall of the arch on the bridge where
gray ground beneath the pink paint is visible

The painting is on a medium-weight,
plain-weave fabric lined to a similar
canvas with an aqueous adhesive.
Although the original tacking margins
are missing, the composition seems
complete. The X-radiograph shows
scalloping on all sides of the canvas and
some lines of loss where the tacking
edges rolled over an earlier stretcher. It
also exposes some tack holes located
slightly within the painting to compen¬
sate for weakening margins.

Although the ground of the painting is
highly reflective in infrared reflectogra-
phy (IRR), once the contrast was
adjusted using Photoshop, fine under¬
drawn lines of carbon black were
noted in some of the figures in the

landscape but not in the actual land¬
scape or bridge (fig. TR 5.1). It was
not possible to tell if these lines were
done with a fine brush or pen or
with a dry drawing material such as
black chalk, charcoal, or pencil.

The painting seems to have a double
ground: the first is pink and the second
a very light gray (fig. TR 5.2). The artist
painted the sky down to the landscape
with light blue paint that contains the
pigment smalt, leaving a reserve for
the large tree. The general tones of the
landscape were added with broad
strokes of thinly applied opaque to thin
translucent paints. The gray ground
shows through the thin layers; this is
particularly evident in the water and
some of the rocks. The foliage was
developed with thin, translucent to
thicker, opaque layers of paint, which

contain lead white, azurite, ocher, green
earth, and smalt, among other pig¬
ments. A daubing technique, perhaps
using lichen, was used for the initial
lay-in of foliage (fig. TR 5.3). Finally,
leaves were painted with small brushes
on the surface with mostly thick,
light-colored paint (fig. TR 5.4). The
figures and bridge were painted directly
over the painted landscape. Fine
brushstrokes of thick cream-colored
paints flicked in various directions
describe the texture of the fleece vest of
the seated shepherd.

The dark paint of the signature is a little
abraded and lightly reinforced. The
painting is in good condition. It has

Both, Landscape with a Draftsman

Fig. TR5.3 Digital micrograph (25X magnification)
showing leaves of large foreground tree executed
with daubing technique over the sky

Fig. TR5.4 Digital micrograph (25X magnification)
showing leaves of large foreground tree executed
with brushes over the sky

a fine crackle pattern that is barely
noticeable. The surface has slight
abrasion, and the lining imparts some
canvas-weave texture. There is
a restored loss about 1 inch in diameter
located 6 inches above the head of
the seated man. There are some further
restorations in the sky to the right of
the big tree and along the edges of the
painting. The restorations show clearly
in ultraviolet light.

Overall the surface of the painting has
a soft, even appearance. The varnish
may be a natural resin. It has yellowed
and developed a fine craquelure, and
it no longer saturates the dark colors. In
ultraviolet light the varnish fluoresces
yellow-green.

Both, Landscape with a Draftsman

Dirck de Bray

(ca. 1635-1694)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.4

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Flowers in a Glass Vase, 1671
Oil on wood, 19 14 x 14% in.

(48.9 x 36.5 cm)

Signed and dated lower left: 1671 D. D. Brayf

D irck de Bray is known to have painted only seven
flower still lifes; of these. Flowers in a Glass Vase
is arguably one of his masterpieces. With this casual
bouquet of common flowers that bloom in the Netherlands
in the late summer, De Bray celebrates both color and
light. Strongly illuminated by light shining through a win¬
dow and reflected in the glass vase, the warm colors of
the bouquet radiate against the dark, undefined background.
The flowers twist and turn; some reach for the light while
others droop with the weight of overripe blossoms; some
cast shadows on each other; and others recede into the
shadows. The play of light and dark within the blossoms
and of light caught by the edges and veins of the leaves
contributes to the bouquet's realism. De Bray used shadows
thrown on the table by illumination from above and slightly
to the left to create the impression of a flat surface receding
into depth. A triangular area of darkness in the lower left
corner of the panel is balanced by the perpendicular shadow
created by the vase. To enhance the impression of space,
he painted a large crane fly emerging from the shadow into
the light and a small housefly disappearing behind the
base of the vase, devices he also used in other paintings.

A similar interest in strong lighting effects is found in his
woodcuts as well as in his Still Life with Dead Rabbit and Falcon
inaNiche, also in LACMA's collection (inv. no. 48.9).

Evidence obtained from infrared reflectography and
the X-radiograph indicates that De Bray began with a general
sketch of the composition that he left in reserve when he
painted the background (see Technical Report). Numerous
pentimenti reveal how De Bray reworked the individual
flowers, changing not only the size but possibly also the type

of flower. The swift, assured strokes with which he adeptly
described the curling edges of flowers and the play of
light within the casual bouquet suggest that he may have
painted directly from an actual bouquet, one that included
only flowers that bloom in the Netherlands in late summer:
poppies, China rose, morning glory, and hollyhock. The
crane fly is also found only from August to October.

De Bray's modest flower still life differs significantly
from those produced half a century earlier by Ambrosius
Bosschaert the Elder (see cat. no. 4), whose symmetrical,
evenly lit, and tightly painted bouquets include exotic as
well as simple local flowers that bloom at various times
of the year. Although the application of paint and selection
of flowers differ, De Bray's bouquet, with its loose natural¬
ism, anticipates by fifty years the large decorative flower
arrangements of Jan van Huysum (see cat. no. 17), in which
voluptuous flowers past their peak droop under the weight
of their blossoms. Positioned halfway between Bosschaert
and Van Huysum, De Bray used color and light to produce
a sensuous, naturalistic bouquet that celebrates the individ¬
ual blossoms of ordinary flowers.

De Bray's selection of flowers and insects and the
painting's ruddy tonality have been interpreted by some as
symbolic of transience. 1 The tonality, however, appears
to relate more to the changes in the pigments and possibly
to the artist's aesthetic interests. 2 Thus, while De Bray's
interest in symbolism is clearly documented in Still Life with
Marian Symbols, dated 1672 (Museum Ons' Lieve Heer op
Solder, Amsterdam, inv. no. AK 365), without the presence
of specific religious objects, it is speculative at best to assign
extended meaning to Flowers in a Glass Vase.

De Bray, Flowers in a Glass Vase

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR6.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR6.2 Digital micrograph (iox magnification)
of the lower left part of the upper marigold

Fig. TR6.3 Raking light on the surface of the painting

Fig. TR6.4 X-radiograph

Fig. TR6.5 Pentimenti in the blue morning glory
flower shows that it was initially a different flower,
and that the artist painted the imprimatura around
it to create a reserve. When he later changed it to
a morning glory, he painted in the darker background
paint around its new shape. In the IRR one can
still see the imprimatura that has a lower carbon-
black content than the background paint.

The panel is a single board about 5 A 6
inch thick. The edges of the reverse have
gentle bevels that are uneven in width.
The panel is in excellent condition. The
light-cream-colored ground is thin and
translucent, and, consequently, the
warm color of the wood permeates the
ground and thinner paints. An
imprimatura may cover the ground,
and extensive underdrawing was
detected with infrared reflectography
(IRR). 1 Several pentimenti were also
found indicating that, despite the
underdrawing, De Bray continued to
work out the composition, making
changes at different stages (fig. TR 6.1).

De Bray painted the dark gray back¬
ground, leaving a reserve for the still
life. For the most part, the background
paint is a mixture of carbon black with
various earth pigments and vermilion
that was loosely applied in several
layers. The paint on the right side of the
painting, which is in shadow, however,
is denser. He used the dark background
paint to shape the already painted
flowers and obtain the appropriate
outlines. The thin, dark lines that De

Bray used to set in the design for the
floral bouquet were difficult to differen¬
tiate from the black background paint
because both contain carbon black and
appear dark in IRR. The lines may have
been done with a brush or pen; there is
also the possibility they were trans¬
ferred from a drawing. They do not have
the broken, powdery appearance
of a charcoal or black-chalk drawing
medium.

De Bray used a variety of pigments and
techniques to achieve the natural
appearance of the flowers. For example,
he laid in the poppies with paint
containing the pigment vermilion-
cinnabar. Their frilly tops were painted
with quick, short, and regular strokes of
local color. The light-colored paint on
the underside of the poppies is on top of
the first red layer. Crimson glazes
provide the deepest reds, while blue
(copper-based) pigments and dashes of
opaque light violet create the cool
shadows and nuances.

The large white tree mallows (contain¬
ing predominantly lead white) were
painted with long brushstrokes
that follow the forms of the petals. The

center of the flower was glazed with
deep red lake, and blue paint was
very thinly applied for the shadows on
the petals.

The red marigolds were painted in an
interesting way. Translucent crimson
paint containing vermilion-cinnabar
and red lake pigments was applied for
the petals. To create their outer edges,
the artist scraped the still-wet red paint
with a blunt pointed tool. He then
applied the yellow centers, brushing the
yellow-orange paint, which contains the
pigment realgar, into the still-wet paint
of the red petals to create the scallops
(fig. TR 6.2).

The blue morning glory in the center of
the bouquet was laid in with a rich blue
paint. Its petals were painted over parts
of the green leaves and the white tree
mallow. The morning glory bud at the
upper right was painted with numerous
colors: the calyxes are bluish-green with
an indigo-blue-colored tip; the bud is
painted with white paint that is glazed
with a lake pigment (pink?), and the
crown has violet lake, vermilion colors,

De Bray, Flowers in a Glass Vase

and white impasto. The shadow side has
a gray glaze or scumble. The raking-
light photograph shows a visually
stimulating use of impasto that gives
tangible form to the image (fig. TR 6.3).

The first application for the leaves is
a light-colored paint containing primar¬
ily azurite and lead white that may be
glazed with copper resinate. The leaves
were once a richer green in color and
probably more evident in the composi¬
tion, but over time copper resinate
characteristically discolors to brown.

A number of pentimenti were found in
the examination of the painting with
X-radiography (fig. TR 6.4) and the IRR.
The rear edge of the table was lowered
from its initial position. Also, the stem
of the left flower resting on the table
once shot up in front of the vase (or was
a reflection) and is now just visible in
normal viewing conditions. There
are numerous changes in the upper
right area of the painting.

Comparison of the infrared reflecto-
gram with the X-radiograph revealed
that the light pink flower on the
right side of the painting, for example.

was changed in size several times. First
it was underdrawn, and then the artist
brought the imprimatura in a little
over the lines. The flower was then
painted larger with some paint contain¬
ing lead white, only to be reduced in
size later, when he brushed in the dark
background paint. The IRR shows the
underdrawn outlines of the earlier large
flower, the imprimatura, and the
background paint—all of which contain
carbon black. The X-radiograph was
able to show the expanded flower
because De Bray had used a paint con¬
taining lead white, which, while
transparent in IRR, is very visible in
an X-radiograph.

IRR also indicates that the morning
glory blossom was planned to be
a different flower with individually
shaped petals (fig. TR 6.5). The
X-radiograph revealed a morning glory
bud positioned above the morning
glory blossom at the upper right that
does not appear in the final picture.
There are many other adjustments
to flowers that are visible with the aid
of analytical tools; for example, the

X-radiograph revealed a larger and
somewhat differently configured
blossom beneath the pink flower on
the right.

The condition of the painting is very
good. It has not been cleaned since it
entered the Carter collection. The
varnish appears a little discolored, and
it no longer saturates the colors.
Ultraviolet light showed very little
restoration. The thin varnish fluoresces
greenish-yellow. Denser fluorescence
along the right background may
indicate later toning. The painting may
have been varnished in its frame: on
the right and bottom sides, thicker
fluorescent strips of varnish follow the
edges of the frame; narrow strips along
the bottom and left edges do not
fluoresce in ultraviolet light, suggesting
the absence of varnish.

NOTE

1 Tests showed that the underdrawing was most
visible using the i6oonm interference bandpass
filter in the Indigo Systems Phoenix NIR digital
camera.

De Bray, Flowers in a Glass Vase

Jan van de Cappelle

(1626-1679)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Ships in a Calm, early 1650s Gift of Mr -and Mrs - Edward W. Carter

Oil on canvas, 31 x 43 in. (78.7 x 109.2 cm) M.2003.108.6

S ilhouetted against the sky, an elegant states yacht
flying the Dutch flag, its leeboard and hull painted
with landscapes, lies at anchor beside two coastal
traders (beurtschippen ). 1 Cannons fired from the yacht
announce the arrival of dignitaries who are being trans¬
ported to shore on a barge ( roeisloep ). 2 Rowed by four
oarsmen with two pikemen standing sentinel in the bow,
the barge skims across the still water, attracting the
attention of fishermen who pause to pay their respects. In
the distance on the right is the Oude Schans, the distinctive
fortress at Texel, beyond which appear the masts of ships
gathering for the Dutch fleet. 1

In his paintings of the calm sea, as in his depictions
of winter scenes of ice skating, Jan van de Cappelle's
primary interest was in capturing complex light effects. The
sky occupies three-quarters of the composition of Ships
in a Calm. Reflections of the sails and sky in the mirror-smooth
water help to integrate the composition and contribute
to the pervading impression of calm. In the distance, backlit
clouds defined in delicate tones of light brown and gray
dissolve into silvery white at the horizon. The luminous
tonality suggests the moist atmosphere that appears as
the sun sets.

Ships in a Calm is one of Van de Cappelle's most classical
compositions in which his restricted palette and carefully
orchestrated light combine with a strong structure based on
a limited number of elements. The major focus of the
painting is in the middle distance, where there is a balanced
interplay of horizontals and verticals. Cool light draws
attention to the horizon, which visually cuts across the
decks of the yacht, the coastal traders, and the barge posi¬
tioned parallel to the picture plane. The low gray clouds
hovering over the sea on the distant left reinforce the
line of the gaff that has been released to lower the spritsail
on the yacht while it is in port. 4 The tall masts and sails
rising above the horizon and reflected in the still water in
the foreground provide the vertical accents that balance
the composition.^

Reported to have been self-taught. Van de Cappelle
was keenly aware of the work of his predecessors and
contemporaries, whose paintings and drawings he collected
and occasionally copied. 6 The influence of Simon de Vlieger
(1600/1601-1653) was particularly significant during
the late 1640s, when Van de Cappelle modeled many of his
compositions on those of the older artist. 7 His painting

A Harbor with Reflecting Water, dated 1649 (Nationalmuseum,
Stockholm, inv. no. NM 562), for example, relies heavily on
De Vlieger's Sailboats at the Shore (ca. early 17th century)
(Muzeum PaJacu Krola Jana III w Wilanowie, Warsaw, inv.
no. Wil. 1666). Van de Cappelle was apparently inspired
by De Vlieger's simple massing of ships on a calm, reflecting
sea and his skill at evoking a silvery atmospheric effect in
his paintings (see cat. no. 34).

The Carter picture, probably painted in the early
1650s, a few years after the Stockholm composition,
represents further development of lessons Van de Cappelle
learned from De Vlieger's example. Moving the boats back
into the middle distance so that they almost ride the
horizon, reducing the number of figures, and then relocat¬
ing them below the horizon line. Van de Cappelle focused
the composition on the three central ships and emphasized
the vastness of the sky and sea. Whereas in Sailboats at
the Shore, De Vlieger suggested recession by the diagonal
alignment of the sails and the placement of the Indiaman in
the distant right. Van de Cappelle emphatically stressed
the horizontal and vertical orientation of the composition.
By reversing the angle of the sails, dropping the sail on
the yacht, and using the vertical line of the masts, he created
a serenely still image in which the clouds hover quietly over
the distant horizon. Billowing softly on the right, they
balance the weight of the ships rather than emphasize the
diagonal as they do in De Vlieger's painting as well as in
Van de Cappelle's painting of 1649 in Stockholm.

Ships in a Calm is one of many compositions Van de
Cappelle painted of naval parades and scenes of yachts
and barges delivering dignitaries to shore (for another
example, see The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv.
no. 96.PB.7). In the Carter painting, a portly, gray-haired
man with a hat sits in the back of the barge on a cloth
of honor. The unusual orientation of the yacht, which is
viewed from the side, emphasizes the gold rampant lion
that serves as the masthead. Typically, as in A Yacht and Other
Vessels in a Calm by Willem van de Velde the Younger (see
cat. no. 33), artists present the stern, by which ships are
usually identified. Here, however, despite the seeming speci¬
ficity of the ship, which has not been identified. Van de
Cappelle was apparently not interested in representing
a specific event. Instead of historical scenes, he chose
to present subjects based on what he often observed
from his own yacht to serve as vehicles for his carefully
constructed compositions. 8

Van de Cappelle, Ships in a Calm

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR7.1 X-radiograph
Fig. TR7.2 Infrared reflectogram

The original support is a medium-
weight, plain-weave canvas lined with
an aqueous adhesive to a fine, plain-
weave canvas. The current stretcher
is slightly larger than the painted
image, which is approximately 30 Vz
by 4214 inches (77.5 by 107.3 cm).

The original tacking margins were
folded out, filled, and painted. Lines of
paint loss where the tacking edges
originally folded over the front edge of
a previous stretcher are visible in the
X-radiograph (fig. TR 7.1).

The painting appears to have a rela¬
tively dark gray ground, possibly
applied over a thin reddish one. Paints
range from opaque and pasty to thin
glazes. The blue paint of the sky, which
contains smalt, was applied over the
ground, and the clouds were built up
fairly directly with energetic

brushwork. Most of the colors contain
ocher, lead white, and calcium white,
which produce the muted tones. The
gray ground contributes to this effect.

Infrared reflectography (IRR) did not
reveal any underdrawing (fig. TR 7.2),
although it may be difficult to see
because of the painting’s double
ground—a lower red and an upper dark
gray ground containing carbon black.

If underdrawing was done with carbon
black, it would be difficult to detect
because there would be little contrast
between it and the gray ground.

The ships were added after the central
clouds were mostly painted. The
X-radiograph and IRR reveal a few
pentimenti. The boat on the far right
side originally had a differently shaped
sail or sails, their former placement
painted out with thick white paint; the

mast may also have been shifted. This
change is, however, more apparent in
the X-radiograph detail (figs. TR7.3,
TR7.4). The sail of the largest ship with
the dark yellow sail has also been
shifted from its original position, which
was slightly more to the left and a little
more upright. The original sail was
painted with a paint containing carbon
black before the artist covered part of it
with the white paint used in the sky.
This change is now partially visible in
normal light due to the increased
transparency of the paint as a result
of aging.

The condition of the painting is good.
There is a large crackle pattern. The
lining has flattened the cracks but also
the paint of the picture to some degree.

Van de Cappelle, Ships in a Calm

Fig. TR7.3 IRR detail of sail

Fig. TR7.4 X-radiograph detail of sail

Ultraviolet light shows a circle of
restoration (about 3 inches in diameter)
above the sailboat in the middle dis¬
tance on the right, but the X-radiograph
shows it covers only a small vertical loss
that has been filled. Ultraviolet light
also reveals two repairs, one above the
other, in the tallest sail. There is also
some general restoration in the gray
cloud about 7 inches to the right of the
tallest sail. The darks of the lower third
of the water have been lightly toned,
probably to hide abrasions. Numerous
cracks in the sky have also been toned.

Since entering the Carter collection in
1971, the painting has not been cleaned.
The varnish, likely a natural resin, is
somewhat yellowed. In past cleanings
more varnish was removed from
the lower right of the painting than
elsewhere.

Van de Cappelle, Ships in a Calm

Pieter Claesz.

(1596/97-1660)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.19

Oil on wood, 17% x 23 Ms in.

(44.8x58.7 cm)

Signed and dated at right: VC 11647

D ated 1647, Still Life with Herring ,, Wine, and Bread is one
of the late, monochrome still-life paintings of
simple meals for which Pieter Claesz. earned his
reputation. The developments in still life introduced and
popularized during the early 1630s in Haarlem by Claesz.
and Willem Claesz. Heda (see cat. no. 13) parallel those in
landscape and marine painting in which the reduction and
organization of motifs are combined with a limited palette
of thinly applied paint. In contrast to the high vantage
point and local colors of the earlier depictions of laid tables
by Floris Claesz. van Dijck (1575-1651), Osias Beert the Elder
(ca. 1580-1623), and others, in which objects appear isolated
on a table viewed from above, here the low viewpoint causes
the objects to overlap, suggesting that they exist in spatial
relationship to each other on a flat surface. 1 Painted with
a palette restricted to tones of ocher, brown, gray, and white
and contained within a visual wedge suggested by the
diagonal extending from the tall rummer to the bread roll,
the still life forms a cohesive, naturalistic composition.

Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread is one of a group of
closely related horizontal still lifes Claesz. painted between
1646 and 1647, including Still Life with Roemer, Fish, and Reeled
Lemon, dated 1646 (Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts,
Moscow, inv. no. 580), 2 and Still Life with a Fish (Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-1857), 3 dated 1647, the same year
as the Carter painting. 4 All three paintings share both
compositional characteristics and specific objects, although
they are arranged in different combinations.

Claesz. did not simply copy the objects in his paint¬
ings from other compositions or drawings; he painted
directly from actual objects he had arranged and studied in
his studio. This innovative procedure, which Heda also
followed, explains the repetition of certain objects seen
from different perspectives and the carefully observed and
rendered reflections of one object on another: the yellow of
the lemon on the pewter plate, the vine leaf on the saltcellar,
the fish on the plate, and the reflection of the window on
the rummer.

Typically referred to as an ontbijt (breakfast), the paint¬
ing represents a simple meal consumed in the morning:
a cooked herring with capers on a sharply foreshortened
pewter plate, a tall rummer of white wine, a crusty roll,
walnuts and hazelnuts, and a partially peeled lemon.

A knife in its sheath lies diagonally on the edge of the table,
while a pewter saltcellar entwined with vines stands in
the background. Claesz. carefully selected and placed each
object to create a cohesive, dynamic, three-dimensional
image. The knife and plate that extend forward over the
table are familiar devices. The lemon, skillfully peeled
to produce a single spiral, was a conceit demonstrating not

only the skill of the diner but also that of the painter, who,
in addition to representing the complicated form, had to
differentiate between the moist flesh of the lemon, its cool,
nubbly exterior, and the soft white layer in between.

Although in essence constituting a simple meal, the
foods Claesz. included in the painting speak of the world¬
wide trade network of the Dutch during the seventeenth
century. Herring, which was fished in the North Sea,
was central to the Dutch economy. By the 1660s Pieter de la
Court estimated that more than one thousand busses or
fishing smacks with capacities of forty-eight to sixty tons
apiece were employed by the North Sea fisheries. “The
fishing industry with its ancillary trades then employed
about 450,000 persons, compared with about 200,000
engaged in agriculture and about 650,000 engaged in other
industries.” 5 In addition to its importance as a vital part
of the Dutch economy, herring was a staple of the Dutch diet
for both the rich and the poor.

Salt, here elevated on the pewter saltcellar, was essen¬
tial for the Dutch diet. 6 According to Jacob Cats (1577-1660),
“One can do better on earth without gold, than without
salt.”7 Salt was required for making cheese and butter as
well as for packing herring and preserving other meats and
foods, especially for transport aboard ships for long
journeys to distant ports. The Dutch originally harvested
salt from domestic peat, but after 1500 they imported raw
sea and rock salt, first from France and Germany, and later
from Spain, Portugal, and the Cape Verde Islands, also
known as the Salt Islands. 8 By the early seventeenth century,
the West Indies had become the primary source of salt
for the Dutch, who refined it in the Netherlands for both
domestic use and export to the Baltic states. 9

Other foods represented in Claesz/s painting allude to
the Mediterranean, where the Dutch conducted trade with
the Ottoman Empire: lemons, currants, walnuts (sometimes
referred to as Persian walnuts), and hazelnuts were com¬
monly found in the ports of the Mediterranean Sea. Brought
by ship to the Netherlands, these delicacies would have been
available only to the wealthier diners. The capers spread
over the cooked herring also came from a warm climate,
having been soaked like lemons in salt brine to keep them
fresh during transport. 1 ®

Painted in the monochrome palette of his earlier
breakfasts, these exotic references in seemingly modest still
lifes nevertheless relate Still Life with Herring, Wine, and
Bread to the larger, more elaborate banquet still lifes Claesz.
and Heda painted in their late careers. Cluttered with
expensive food and drink—ham, crab, oranges, and meat
pies—served on imported porcelain and expensive silver
plates, they celebrate abundance and prosperity.

Claesz., Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR8.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR8.2 Detail of peeled lemon, grapes,
and dishes

Fig. TR8.3 IRR detail of peeled lemon, grapes,
and dishes

Fig. TR8.4 IRR detail indicating possible
underdrawing

The panel, about 14 inch thick and
beveled, is composed of two boards
tightly joined. The top board is
approximately 8 3 A inches wide and the
bottom 8 7 /s inches wide. The panel is
slightly bowed. A fine split extends
from the bread roll through the base of
the wineglass.

The thin gray ground allows the wood
color and grain to be visible. Paints
range from pasty whites to translucent
browns. Brushstrokes are visible in
areas of loosely applied paint, but other
areas are blended to a higher finish.
Overall the paint appears medium-rich;
this is accentuated by the glossy varnish.

The composition was laid in with rich,
translucent brown paint, visible in the
shadowed background on the right, on
the front of the table at left, and in the

dark shadow cast by the plate with a
lemon. Claesz. painted the light cloth
around the shadow of the plate and
then added thin layers of gray paint to
make the transition from light to darker
shadow. In the background, he applied
dense bright paint on the left side that
he brushed out to a thin scumble over
the dark underlayer on the right to
achieve a smooth transition from light
to dark. The gray paint contains carbon
black, azurite, and possibly lake.

The fish is painted with a medium-tone
salmon color; dark glazes and high¬
lights give it form. The capers seem
quickly painted, but in several layers:
using a small brush, the artist laid in
dark brown paint followed by green and
then a few dots of white as highlights.
The green capers and leaves contain
lead white, lead-tin yellow, azurite,
copper resinate, ochers, and carbon
black. The flesh of the lemon is painted
on a very thin gray paint layer and then

colored with yellow paint that contains
lead white and lead-tin yellow.

Smalt was found in the knife handle
and the ribbon.

X-radiography and infrared reflectogra-
phy (IRR) (fig. TR 8.1) show only minor
changes. IRR suggests that there may be
underdrawing around some of the
still-life elements. While many of these
outlines are visible in normal light, as in
the adjustments made to the sides of
the white tablecloth, in a few areas lines
appear to be covered with paint, which
suggests that they are underdrawn. The
lines, which appear dark against the
IR-reflective calcium-carbonate ground,

Claesz., Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread

are fairly thin and could have been done
with a fine brush, pen, or perhaps with
a graphite pencil, or a metalpoint.

There may also be some changes in the
leaves on either side of the rummer,
and the bowl of the rummer may have
been adjusted (figs. TR8.2-TR8.4).

The painting is in good condition.

There are numerous areas of toning of
the wood grain, which no doubt became
more visible with time. The dark paint
of the monogram and date has suffered
some abrasion, and the last two digits
are compromised by toning. The thick
varnish fluoresces yellow-green in
ultraviolet light.

Claesz., Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread

Adriaen Coorte

(act. 1683-1707)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Still Life with Strawberries
in a Wan-LiBowl, 1704
Oil on paper mounted on wood,
ii 5 /s x 8 7 /s in. (29.5 x 22.5 cm)

Signed and dated lower left, on edge of stone table:
A Coorte/1/04

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.5

E xhibited at an exhibition of still lifes in Amsterdam
in 1933, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl was
the first painting by Adriaen Coorte to come to the
attention of twentieth-century connoisseurs and scholars. It
remains one of the most exquisite examples of the artist’s
work, surprisingly modern in its simplicity and its abstrac¬
tion of both light and form.

Typical of Coorte’s mature compositions from 1696
to 1707, the Carter painting, dated 1704, represents a simple
still life placed on the corner of a stone table. The regular
placement of the table in each of his compositions has led to
speculation that Coorte used a template to position its
location. 1 Like the majority of his paintings. Still Life with
Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl is painted on prepared paper
glued to a wood panel of the same size. 8 In at least two
instances, but not in the present work, Coorte reused paper
that had writing on it. In the Carter painting, evidence of
damage to the paper unrelated to the condition of the panel
suggests that the paper was attached to the panel only after
Coorte’s death, probably to facilitate its sale. 3

The Carter painting is one of twelve known still lifes
in which Coorte depicted a bowl of strawberries isolated in
bright light on the corner of a stone table. In these, as
well as in two paintings of strawberries loosely placed on
the table (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 1106), from 1705,
a single white strawberry flower rises like a flag from the
fruit, animating the dark background. The device recalls
Coorte’s use of a butterfly or moth in his early works, such
as Still Life with Three Medlars and a Butterfly, about 1693-95
(private collection, the Netherlands), 4 and the leaves in his
contemporary paintings of gooseberries and other fruit. 5

In the earliest of Coorte’s still lifes of strawberries,
which date from 1696, the strawberries are in a red crockery
bowl with a handle, typical of those used to carry fresh
berries to or from the market. By 1704, the date of the Carter
painting, however, Coorte had replaced the common
crockery vessel with a delicate Chinese porcelain bowl. 6 In
1981 the Carter still life was thought to be the only painting
in which Coorte portrayed strawberries in a Wan-Li bowl.^
Since then, however, two other closely related paintings,
also dated 1704, have been identified. 8 The repetition of the
same bowl filled with strawberries but viewed from slightly
different angles in other paintings suggests that Coorte
worked directly from an object in his possession rather than
from sketches or his imagination. Known generically as
kraak porcelain because of the ships, carracks, that brought
them from China, the bowl is a typical “crowcup,” mass-
produced between about 1595 and 1645 for the European
market and exported to the Netherlands by the Dutch East
India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC).
The small bowl, which has a foliated, everted rim, would
have measured only four to five inches in diameter and two
and a half to three and a half inches in height. The exterior
is decorated with the popular deer motif. Usually drawn in

a light shade of blue, the design is typically divided into
eight panels framed by single lines. Within each panel is a
single spotted deer, thought to be a sika, a Chinese sign of
good luck; the panels alternate between a deer with its head
turned backward and one facing forward, each surrounded
by foliage. 9

Coorte’s use of light in his later paintings both sim¬
plifies and abstracts forms. The blue-and-white bowls,
silhouetted against a stark black background, rather than
the mottled brown background that appears behind the
crockery bowls in his earlier works, 10 dramatically set off the
brilliant red fruit. In the Carter painting, strong highlights
accent the rim of the bowl and the edge of the table. Dots
of white lead and lead-tin yellow suggest the yellow seeds of
the strawberries, which seem to sparkle in the light. In 1692
the Amsterdam artist and author Wilhelmus Beurs (1656-
1700) wrote about ‘“perfectly ripe strawberries’ in which the
painter must ‘depict the shine on each individual seed.’”^ 1
Interestingly, Beurs wrote about many of Coorte’s favorite
subjects, including asparagus and gooseberries, as well as
strawberries. Much of his advice on painting can also be
found in other sources, including an English manuscript
partly based on the instructions Jan Davidsz. de Heem
(1606-1684) wrote before 1657, which include advice on how
to paint grapes.*

Although such texts may have influenced Coorte, his
choice of motifs and interest in light and the translucency of
grapes and gooseberries reflect the enduring legacy of
Flemish still-life paintings. Stalks of white asparagus tied
with twine (a delicacy grown in Zeeland), fresh berries in
blue-and-white bowls, cracked and whole nuts, translucent
gooseberries, and leaves that dance like kites against a dark
background, with light captured by their edges and veins,
are familiar elements in the still lifes of Frans Snyders
(1579-1657) and his followers. Coorte’s interest in Flemish
painting is clearly evident in his early work in which fruit
rests on the corner of a bare stone tabletop over which leaves
and fruit sometimes fall. Similarities between Coorte’s
paintings and those of Isaac van Duynen (1628-ca. 1680),
active in The Hague, 13 Abraham van Calraet (1642-1722),
active in Dordrecht, 14 and the Parisian painter Louise Moillon
(1610-1696; Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no.
F.1972.36.2.P) reflect common influences.

Although there is scant information regarding his
life, Coorte appears to have had strong ties with Vlissingen,
the major harbor for the Dutch East India Company in
Zeeland, strategically located at the mouth of the Scheldt
River, the passageway from the sea to Antwerp. A document
dated 1780 refers to Coorte as being “from Vlissingen,”
where in 1695 and 1696 he was fined by the painters’ guild
for selling his work without being a member of the guilds
Laurens J. Bol also noted that the majority of the early
references to Coorte’s paintings appear in Middelburg, the
capital of Zeeland, and surrounding areas. 16

Coorte, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR 9.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR9.2 Detail of strawberries showing points of
white with red paint around them, as well as deeper
red paints

The painting is on paper adhered to
a wood panel with shallow bevels. The
panel has a slight vertical convex bow
through the center. Irregular, vertical
striations on the reverse of the panel
relate to its manufacture; some are
faintly visible on the obverse. The paper
support is difficult to examine because
it is covered with paint and varnish. The
paper does not quite go to the edges of
the panel, especially at the top right and
lower left. A fairly thick pink ground
covers only the paper; it does not extend
over the wood. There appears to be a
thin, dark imprimatura, which is visible
with high magnification. Infrared
reflectography (IRR) picked up the laid
lines of the paper, but it did not detect
any underdrawing (fig. TR9.1). 1 IRR did
show pentimenti painted with an
IR-reflective pigment that appeared
bright white through the brushstrokes
of the carbon-black paint used in the
background. 2

Coorte laid in the bowl and table and
then applied the dark background,
which contains ochers and a small
amount of vermilion-cinnabar, among
other pigments. The bowl was initially
laid in with light blue paint that
contains smalt and iron pigments
(ocher and/or green earth). Then
a light-colored paint was applied and
finally the light green-blue design.

The design has a hazy appearance that
may be due in part to deterioration of
smalt in the oil medium.

The strawberries are also painted in
several layers. Coorte first applied dots
of white paint, creating the raised
points of the strawberries. Next he
applied red paint containing vermilion-
cinnabar pigment that flowed off the
raised dots to expose the white tips.
Frank Preusser, formerly Senior
Scientist at LACMA, suggested that the
red paint is a tempera medium and that
the white layer is oil. Tiny bubbles are
visible in the red paint, a characteristic
of a water-based medium, which would
have been repelled by the white oil
paint. Finally, paint containing red lake

was applied for the deeper red color
(fig. TR9.2). X-ray fluorescence spec¬
trometry (XRF) of the green leaves of
the strawberries detected copper
pigment and/or copper resinate and a
small amount of lead-tin yellow in
addition to other pigments.

A few adjustments and changes are
visible in the X-radiograph and IRR. In
IRR, a light halo to the left of the
Wan-Li bowl suggests one, possibly two,
earlier placements of the bowl. These
pentimenti are marked on the image in
red and blue (fig. TR9.3). The red profile
differs significantly from that of the
current Wan-Li bowl but appears simi¬
lar to Coorte’s red clay market bowls. 3
The second darker shape, outlined in
blue, resembles the final Wan-Li bowl
and may represent an earlier placement
of the bowl. Some slightly more

Coorte, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl

Fig. TR9.3 The red outline indicates an earlier
shape of bowl, similar to terracotta bowls used by
the artist in other paintings. The blue outline
indicates another early bowl shape, and the yellow
indicates an arc shape visible in IRR.

Fig. TR9.4 X-radiograph marked with strawberries
that were painted out

IR-reflective stippling or patterning
directly behind and above the strawber¬
ries on the left may be either earlier
strawberries or patterning of the earlier
bowl itself. There appears to be an arch
shape beneath the table ledge to the
right. Several strawberries were at least
begun on the ledge at left but then
painted out (fig. TR 9.4).

The condition of the painting is very
good. The paper is wrinkled in several
areas, where it has detached from the
wood support. Paint layers have a fine
crackle pattern, which is slightly
contracted in the light colors. Ultra¬
violet light showed limited restorations
along the edges, especially at the
bottom right, as well as some on the
table to the left of the bowl. The sig¬
nature and date in a dark color appear
in a good state and have age cracks.
Ultraviolet light shows a thin, streaky,
fluorescing varnish in good condition.
The painting was cleaned in 1974
atLACMA.

NOTES

1 The painting is executed on paper that is glued
to a wooden support. The carbon-black pigment
used in the background paint is so dark and
absorbing in IRR that any underdrawing, if it
exists, would be obscured. In addition, the
vermilion pigment used for the strawberries is
highly reflective in IRR, and that also would
prevent the detection of any underdrawing.

2 These pentimenti were visible in the IR reflec-
togram taken with the i6oonm and i4oonm
interference bandpass filters.

3 For example, A Bowl of Strawberries on a Stone Plinth
(Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-C-1687).

Coorte, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li Bowl

Aelbert Cuyp

(l620-l69l)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

The Flight into Egypt, mid- to late 1650s 1 Gift °f Mr -and Mrs - Edward William Carter

Oil on wood, 2 6% x 35V2 in. AC1996.150.1

(67.6 x 90.2 cm)

Signed lower left: A. Cuyp

I n 1854 Gustav Waagen called Aelbert Cuyp's The Flight
into Egypt “one of the most beautiful [paintings] that
ever came from the master ” z Painted in the mid- to late
1650s, the subtle light and delicately described forms mark
a dramatic change from the artist's earlier monochromatic
landscapes, such as View of the Maas near Dordrecht, about 1647
(fig. 10.1). In The Flight into Egypt, the cool morning sun
crisply defines details in the shadowed foreground while
blurring those along the deep river landscape, where a soft,
clear, colorful light suggestive of a pervasive moisture-laden
atmosphere dissolves the boundaries between land, water,
and sky. The extremely low horizon opens over three-
quarters of the panel to the sky; fair-weather clouds rise
over the distant mountains, guiding the viewer's eye along
the banks of the river toward the foreground.

The shift in style between Cuyp's early paintings and
those of his maturity, such as The Flight into Egypt, reflects
his interest in the Italianate landscapes of artists who had
traveled south, particularly Jan Both (see cat. no. 5).

Both's impressive, often large, paintings from the 1640s
introduced Cuyp and other Dutch artists to the contre-jour
light effects of the French painter Claude Lorrain (1604-
1682), whom Both had known in Rome before returning to
Utrecht by 1642.

Cuyp's definition of the effect of light on the water
and on the distant landscape in The Flight into Egypt is closely
related to Both's lighting in Italian Landscape with Ferry
(fig. 10.2), in which the unseen sun casts long shadows from
the right, clearly defining distant forms and reflections
on the water. In Cuyp's painting, the low sun shines from
the opposite direction beyond the left edge of the com¬
position. In addition to creating the long shadows in the
foreground, the sun crisply defines details of the clouds,
mountains, and foliage that sparkle with the light. Like
Both, Cuyp was interested in depicting the light effects at
different times of day. Although the time of day—morning
or evening—is uncertain in the Carter painting, the
relatively cool palette and delicate haze across the distance
suggest a morning mist that will disappear with the rising
sun that already has turned the edges of the clouds a light
pink. The subtle tones of the clouds and landscape reflected
in the soft blue water distinguish the Carter painting from
the rosier sky in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's related
painting. Landscape with the Flight into Egypt (inv. no. 1973.155.2).
It is unclear if this represents a development in Cuyp's style
or if it was intended to define a different time of day.

In The Flight into Egypt, Cuyp adopted not only the
atmospheric light but also the compositional devices that
characterize Both's paintings, particularly Italian Landscape
with Ferry. In both compositions, a road framed by mountains
pivots around two tall, slender trees, focusing attention
son the figures in the foreground. A man and woman placed
strategically on a rise of land to the right of the trees in the

middle distance skillfully link the foreground to the distant
town, where the mountains slope to meet the river. Yet,
while adopting the general concept and possibly the motif
of the travelers from Both, Cuyp created a stronger, more
classically structured composition by elongating the
horizontal dimensions, eliminating the landscape elements
on the left, and extending the gradually descending line of
mountains so that the broad river winds unimpeded into
the far distance. A black chalk drawing, perhaps inspired by
the landscape along the Rhine River (Hamburger Kunsthalle,
Hamburg, inv. no. 21824), documents Cuyp's independent
working out of the composition of the Carter painting.
Although the basic structure is the same, in the painting,
Cuyp extended the central group of trees vertically almost
to the top of the panel, transforming it into a major struc¬
tural element that draws attention to the two cowherds
who watch an elderly man leading a donkey on which rides
a woman cradling a baby.

The subject of the painting was not recognized until
1925, when Knoedler Gallery exhibited it as Evening Effect—
The Flight into Egypt . 3 The gestures of the two herdsmen
resting on the side of the road—one man directs the gaze of
his companion to the passing family as his horse turns to
stare—underscore the significance of the travelers. A saw
extending from the basket on the side of the donkey and the
headdress and bare feet of the woman identify the travelers
as the Holy Family fleeing Israel following King Herod's
command that all male children be killed (Matthew 2:13-14).
According to the Bible, an angel warned Joseph in a dream
of the impending danger, and the family fled immediately
in the dead of night.

Adam Elsheimer (1578-1610) interpreted the story
literally in his influential 1609 painting (Alte Pinakothek,
Munich, inv. no. 216), which depicts the family traveling by
lantern light through a dark landscape dramatically
illuminated by moonlight and the campfire of shepherds. 1
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn (1606-1669) also depicted
the flight of the Holy Family as a nocturnal scene in a small
painting dated 1627 (Musee des Beaux-Arts, Tours, inv. no.
1950-13-1) as well as in three etchings from the early 1650s. 5
Although he may have known these paintings, Cuyp
was undoubtedly more familiar with Hendrik Goudt's (1583-
1648) 1613 engraving that reverses Elsheimer's painting,
placing the dramatically receding diagonal of the trees
lining the shoreline on the right, 6 and with Rembrandt's
etchings. As in one of Rembrandt's etchings (Bartsch 55),
Cuyp represented the Virgin in biblical (Middle Eastern)
clothing cradling the infant Christ as she sits sidesaddle on
a donkey led by Joseph in contemporary dress who walks
on the far side of the animal; in both images a basket with
the family's possessions is strapped to the donkey. However,
except for the etching from about 1653 that he reworked
from a plate by Hercules Seghers (1590-ca. 1638) that has

Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt

a light sky (Bartsch 56, iv), Rembrandt portrayed the Holy
Family traveling at night, whereas Cuyp represented them
traveling by daylight.

In depicting the subject as a daytime event, Cuyp
followed the example of Italianate landscape artists such as
Cornelis van Poelenburgh (1594/95-1667), for whom the
Flight into Egypt and especially the Rest on the Flight into
Egypt were favorite subjects that he set in clear daylight.

In Poelenburgh's paintings, however, the family and setting
are arcadian rather than Dutch. Although no painting of
the subject by Jan Both is known, travelers with donkeys
appear often in his work and undoubtedly inspired Cuyp's
depiction of the Holy Family.

Three versions of the Flight into Egypt have been
attributed to Cuyp. 7 In each, the landscape dominates the
biblical subject and Cuyp represents the story as a contem¬
porary event taking place, almost unnoticed, in a Dutch
landscape. The most accomplished, and presumably the last,
version of the subject by him is the Carter painting. Cuyp's
smaller painting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

New York, which was probably made slightly earlier, is less

focused than the Carter painting. 8 The scale of figures in the
Metropolitan's painting is smaller and the composition is
more diffuse—the Holy Family moves into the shadows
in the left foreground, leaving the light center of the com¬
position open except for the diminutive woman and child
who look out over the water at the sunset. In the Carter
painting, larger figures occupy the foreground, where they
are the clear focus of the composition. Cuyp used the
gestures of the herders and the monumental tall, slender
trees to draw attention to the Holy Family, whom he has
convincingly integrated into the landscape. Infrared reflec-
tography reveals that Cuyp struggled with the placement
of the animals and herders, who were originally larger in
scale and positioned differently (see Technical Report).

Throughout his career, Cuyp was a landscape painter
who used staffage carefully to complement and structure
his compositions. He painted few religious scenes. When he
did, as in The Flight into Egypt, the carefully placed and
positioned figures animate and define the landscape with¬
out detracting from the overall theme of light and color.

Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt

Fig. 10.1

Fig. 10.2

Fig. 10.1 Aelbert Cuyp, View of the Maas near Dordrecht,
ca. 1647. Oil on wood, 19 Vz x 30 in. (49.5 x 76.2 cm).
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Adele S.
Browning Memorial Collection, donated by Mildred
Browning Green and Judge Lucius Peyton Green
(inv. no. 50.43)

Fig. 10.2 Jan Dirksz. Both, Italian Landscape with Ferry,
ca. 1652. Oil on canvas, 29% x 35% in. (76 x 91 cm).
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-52)

Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR10.1 Infrared reflectogram
Fig. TR10.2 X-radiograph

The oak panel, which is just under 14
inch thick, has a cradle that has caused
very slight undulations on the surface.

It is composed of three boards with
tight joins. The top board is 7% inches
wide, the middle one is io 7 /s inches
wide, and the bottom, 8 s /s inches wide.
The vertical measurements of the panel
vary slightly: the right side is Vs inch
taller (26% in.) than the left (2 6 5 /s in.).
Along the very left edge there is an
incision. The double ground consists of
a cream-colored ground with a beige or
pink layer on top. Infrared reflectography
(IRR) revealed thin, dark underdrawing
(fig. TR10.1), in particular in the figures
of the Virgin, Joseph, and their donkey. 1
The sharp, fairly uniform appearance
of the lines suggests they were executed
with brush, pen, or pencil.

Cuyp painted the sky and clouds directly
wet-into-wet. Smalt is the primary
blue pigment he used for the sky.

A striking contrast was produced by

applying pink and yellow highlights
over the dark blue-gray paint of
the clouds. Several developments in the
sky are unclear in the X-radiograph
(fig. TR10.2). The most obvious is a half
circle of dense brushstrokes at the top
center, which reminds one of beams
from the sun. The X-radiograph needs
further study to explain various
phenomena.

He painted large parts of the landscape
over the dry paint of the sky: the distant
hills on the left side were thinly painted
over the light yellow paint of the sky,
and the cliffs on the right were also
painted fairly thinly with brown paint
over the sky and clouds. The reflections
of light on the water were created
by layering a light-colored paint over
a warm dark color.

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF)
identified lead white, copper-based
azurite, ocher, green earth, and lead-tin
yellow pigments in the paint used for
the landscape. No phosphorus was found
in the greens to suggest the presence
of vivianite, a pigment of grayish-blue
hue that has been reported in other

paintings by Cuyp. 2 Yellow lake was
likely mixed with blue pigments or was
glazed over blue paint to achieve the
green color of the foliage. The bluish
color of the leaves in the foreground
resulted from the fading or eroding of
the yellow lake. 3 Pigments throughout
the painting appear very finely ground.
Extensive changes made by the artist
in the lower right of the painting make
it difficult to understand the buildup
of paint in that area. It is possible to see,
however, that the trunk of the largest
tree has a gray underlayer.

The X-radiograph and IRR revealed
a number of changes or developments,
some of which appear as faint, dark
shadows on the surface of the painting.
Two trees, larger than any in the final
painting, were planned to the right of
Joseph, closer to the picture plane.

In the left foreground, Cuyp reduced
the height of the bushes that he
had already painted over the water.

Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt

Fig. TR10.3 Pentimenti in the group of shepherds
and piebald horse. The IRR shows the man with
a hat on horseback in black, while the X-radiograph
shows the lead white that was used to paint the
horse he rides. Several other pentimenti exist but
are less clear.

As the repaint has aged, it has become
darker than the surrounding water, and
the tops of the bushes are today visible
in normal light. The size and postures
of the cattle also have some changes, for
example, the red cow lying to the left in
the foreground has been shifted from
its original position.

Major changes in the group of herds¬
men and cattle on the left, visible
in IRR, are more difficult to interpret.

A figure on horseback with a dark cloak
and a dark hat appears directly on top
of and above the two herdsmen (fig. TR
10.3). The horse is pointed away from
the fleeing Holy Family, and the rider
appears to be twisting to look back at
them. Comparing the IRR and the
X-radiograph, it is possible to interpret
this figure: his body and hat are
apparent in the IRR because of the
carbon-black paint that was used. His
horse was painted with lead white,
and although this is transparent and
invisible in IRR, it is very visible in the
X-radiograph. The use of lead-white
paint on the horse indicates that Cuyp
developed the rider and horse beyond
the underdrawing stage before he

abandoned them. A large dark shape to
the right of the piebald horse may be
a figure. With the exception of the rider
with the dark hat and his horse, it is not
possible to tell if all of these pentimenti
were created at the underdrawing stage
or later as the painting was developed.

The Virgin’s cape originally extended
farther to the right. Cuyp first painted
the Virgin with a dark bodice and a veil
with a peak over her forehead before
adding the purple robe and white
veil covering her head. This is quite
visible in IRR and was intended to
be seen in the painting.

The condition of the painting is very
good. There appears to be a hazy bluish
film in some of the foliage, especially
noticeable in the foreground. Ultra¬
violet light shows a few small, scattered
restorations, including some along the
joins. The surface has an even appear¬
ance. The varnish is somewhat dirty and
discolored and does not saturate the
paints very well.

NOTES

1 The painting was first examined without any
interference bandpass filters and captured
with the i4oonm filter, which gave the crispest
resolution and best contrast.

2 Sprint 2001.

3 Sprint 2001.

Cuyp, The Flight into Egypt

Jan van Goyen

(1596-1656)

View of Dordrecht, 1645

Oil on wood, 25% x 38 in.

(65.7x96.5 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.6

Provenance

Signed and dated lower center, on the rowboat:

Exhibitions

VGOYEN1645

References

V iew of Dordrecht is one of at least twenty known

paintings Jan van Goyen produced between 1641 and
1655 in which the city of Dordrecht is the setting,
if not the major subject. 1 Located on an island in the delta at
the crossroads of the River Maas to the north and the River
Scheldt to the south, Dordrecht functioned as one of the
gateways to Zeeland and North Brabant in the Spanish
Netherlands. 2 In 1641 the famous English diarist John Evelyn
(1620-1706) visited the city and wrote on 23 July:

Dort, the onely virgin, and first towne of Holland 3 ...
is commodiously situated on the river of [Merwede] by
which it is furnishe'd [with] all German Commodities,
and especially Rhenish-Wines and Timber: It hath
almost at the extreamity a very spacious, and venera¬
ble Church; a Stately Senat-house wherein was holden
that famous Synod against the Arminians 1618. 4

Traveling from the city of Veere on the island of
Walcheren in Zeeland to Dordrecht, Evelyn probably took
the ferry ( beurtvaart ) that sailed daily with the tides between
the two cities. 5 Dordrecht was particularly dependent
on the elaborate ferry network that provided intercity
transportation of people and goods throughout the
Netherlands. It offered a wide range of sailings across the
Hollandsch Diep to North Brabant, departing twice
daily to Geertruidenberg and daily to Klundert and Bergen-
op-Zoom, and also frequently inland toward Germany. 6

The Grote Kerk, with its enormous square tower that
could be seen for miles from many directions, clearly
identifies the city. In the Carter painting and others. Van
Goyen selected a view that emphasizes the Grote Kerk rather
than the traditional panorama of Dordrecht viewed across
the Merwede River, which was favored by such cartogra¬
phers as Georg Braun and Franz and Abraham Hogenberg
(Library of Congress Geography and Map Division,
Washington, DC, inv. no. 2008627031) and adopted by the
painters Adam Willaerts (1577-1664) and Aelbert Cuyp
(1620-1691). Van Goyen represents the city from the Dordtse
Kil at the point where the Benede Merwede, a tributary
of the Rhine, flows from the northeast, becomes the Oude
Maas, and continues on to Rotterdam and the sea. The
Dordtse Kil—seen in the right foreground of this painting—
flows southeast to Haringvliet, from which the daily ferries
from Dordrecht continued to Antwerp.

Van Goyen's many drawings document his frequent
travels along the rivers throughout the Netherlands, so it
can be assumed that he based his composition and the
details of the landscape on his personal experience. His only
extant drawing of Dordrecht (Kupferstich-Kabinett der
Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, inv. no. 52/072),
however, appears in a sketchbook he kept during a trip to
Antwerp and Brussels in 1648, three years after the date
of the Carter painting. 7 Viewed from the same perspective
but slightly closer to the city than in the painting, the

sketch reveals how Van Goyen selectively reduced the scale
of the surrounding buildings to enhance the presence of
the church.

Rather than the large ships of the Dutch East India
Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC) and
the navy in Dordrecht's active port, which were the focus
of works by Willaerts, Cuyp, and others. Van Goyen carefully
observed and recorded the activities of fishermen and the
boats that transported people and cargo between local cities.
Here he represents a ferry loaded with passengers sailing
a diagonal course from the lower left toward Dordrecht,
apparently having come from the Oude Maas—the direction
of Rotterdam. 8 A rowboat with a man at the bow extending
a pole with a hook approaches the ferry from the right with
additional passengers. By aligning a second rowboat behind
the first. Van Goyen suggests the movement of the boats
along the Dordtse Kil. Another sailboat passes in the back¬
ground to the right, near the western part of the city outside
the Vuijlpoort, which a late sixteenth-century map notes
was the location of a number of inns. 9 Beyond this, the tower
of the city hall can be seen.

Van Goyen staged the scene, carefully positioning
the boats and the dark spit of land with fishermen casting
their nets in the foreground, to suggest space. One need
only imagine the scene without them to appreciate their
compositional significance. With the horizon line placed at
approximately one-quarter the height of the panel, the
distant shore of Zwijndrecht, quickly sketched with delicate
films of green paint, melts into the sky on the left. Delicately
rendered, the silhouette of Dordrecht recedes behind the
towering Grote Kerk, which seems to sit on the horizon at
the edge of the city. The church's lofty tower, which was left
incomplete because the marshy ground could not support
its full weight, houses the largest carillon in Europe—sixty-
seven bells—regulated by the tower's four clocks.

Van Goyen heightened the naturalistic effect of
his composition by painting swiftly with a monochromatic
brown palette of glazes with little pigment, reducing his
costs and allowing him to work more rapidly and efficiently
than artists who labored with traditional methods of
applying layers of expensive pigments and glazes. 10 The
goal of Van Goyen and others who employed the technique
was to achieve a more naturalistic effect but also to gain
both fame and profit by producing greater numbers of
paintings to satisfy the demand for relatively inexpensive
works. The number of similar views of Dordrecht that
Van Goyen painted reflects his ability to paint quickly an
apparently popular composition for the open market
with variations only of details in the foreground. Rather
than disdained, paintings produced in this manner were,
according to contemporary writers, admired by art lovers
who appreciated the virtuosity of the technique, which
produced naturalistic effects so swiftly. 11 Jan Orlers, the
biographer of the city of Leiden, proudly noted that Van
Goyen's works “were highly valued by all art lovers.''^

Van Goyen, View of Dordrecht

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR11.1 Infrared reflectogram

The panel is about % inch thick and
composed of three boards. The top board
is 10 inches wide, and the middle and
lower boards are each about 8 inches
wide. The panel is 14 th inch higher on
the right edge than on the left. The
reverse of the panel is roughly finished
and beveled. A knot in the wood, which
is visible on the reverse, is located at the
upper center, where the bird is painted.
At the horizontal center, the panel has
a very slight convex curve.

The off-white ground contains a large
proportion of calcium carbonate, which
allows the wood grain to show through
on the painted surface. Infrared
reflectography (IRR) detected a design
carried out with brush and paint that
contains carbon black. This may be
Van Goyen's initial design that he
worked up with local color, but it also
plays a large part in the final image,

as in the work of other Dutch landscape
painters (fig. TRn.i). Indeed, there
are no clear divisions between painting
and underdrawing stages with this
landscape. Brushed outlines done with
a medium containing carbon-black
pigment are found throughout. They
are particularly visible in IRR for two
reasons: (l) because of the good contrast
between the IR-reflective ground
and the IR-absorbing black of the under¬
drawing or lay-in; and (2) because so
many of the overlying paints (blues,
browns, and copper greens) are trans¬
parent in IRR. Examination with
a digital microscope showed that some
of these brushed lines are covered with
paint while others are left fully visible.

Paint ranges from thin, fluid darks
to thicker light colors, which may have
some low impasto. Paint was applied
with various sizes of brushes and
a variety of strokes. Smaller brushes
were used for the landscape and ships.

The large sail at left was painted with
multiple narrow brushstrokes next to
one another running uninterrupted
from the top of the sail to its base (fig.
TR11.2). The artist laid in the blue paint
of the sky and the light paint of the
clouds with larger brushes and vigorous
brushwork, which stand out in the
X-radiograph (fig. TR11.3). He created
the subtle shadows of the clouds with
warm, transparent glazes and thin,
opaque paints of various densities. The
warm tone of the wood showing
through the thinner applications of
paint creates additional variety. The
paint for the sky contains smalt and
lead-white pigments, and the glazes are
various mixtures of lake and/or ocher.

Van Goyen, View of Dordrecht

The foreground browns (containing
black, ochers, and smalt pigments) were
thinly applied over the ground so as
not to cover it entirely; a crimson glaze
was applied in some areas of the
foreground. The artist painted the trees
into the wet paint of the sky with paint
containing largely copper-based
pigments. He glazed the foliage with
what now appears brown to mauve or
brownish-yellow in color. X-ray
fluorescent spectrometry and visual
analysis with the digital microscope
suggest that the glaze is a copper-
resinate that was originally green but,
as often happens, has discolored.

The sky and landscape were well along
when the boats and figures were added.
The architecture and boats were painted
mostly alia prima with thin light
and dark paints, but some details were

added with thicker paint. The hands
of the church clock and the wings of the
windmill at right contain lead-tin
yellow pigment mixed with chalk. The
dull off-white particles of the chalk
pigment mute the colors and make them
less opaque. The hands of the clock
appear to be orange or yellow. The dark
paint of the signature is thick in parts
but is somewhat abraded.

X-radiography showed no obvious
changes. The painting is in good condi¬
tion, but there are some restorations.

In the sky, fine horizontal cracks in the
paint and light abrasion have been
carefully toned. There is some resto¬
ration close to the center along the join
of the top two boards. The bird painted
over the knot in the upper center also
has some restoration. The varnish has
grayed or yellowed somewhat and fluo¬
resces bluish-green in ultraviolet light.

Van Goyen, View of Dordrecht

Jan van Goyen

(1596-1656)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

View of Arnhem, 1646 Gift of Mr. an d Mrs. Edward William Carter

Oil on wood, i 7 y 16 X 2 il 4 in. M.2009.106.20

(43.7 x54 cm)

Signed and dated lower right edge: 1 VGOYEN 16(46]

"rv*'

B etween 1633 and 1646 Jan van Goyen painted

approximately twenty views of Arnhem, the capital
of the province of Gelderland located on the Rhine
River in the eastern Netherlands. The paintings represent
the distinctive silhouette of the city from either of two
perspectives: from the river, emphasizing the diagonal
sweep of the shoreline and the anecdotal activity of the busy
port; 2 or from a hill northwest of the city, where travelers
pass along a road leading to Arnhem and where, in the
distance, the serpentine course of the river is visible as it
flows from the east. Although his only extant drawings of
the city are from a sketchbook dated 1650-51, the accuracy
of the city’s profile and the general description of the
surrounding countryside indicate that Van Goyen, a prolific
draftsman, based his paintings on now-lost drawings he
made on location.

The Carter painting is one of the nine pictures in
which Van Goyen represented the view from the Veluwe
hills northwest of the city, where the road from Utrecht
to Zutphen passed Arnhem and met the southern road to
Nijmegen. 3 A comparison of the present work dated 1646
to Van Goyen’s first View of Arnhem, which was painted more
than a decade earlier, in 1633, 4 and to his contemporary
versions from 1646, in Berlin and Diisseldorf, 5 reveals the
evolution of the image and the success of the Carter paint¬
ing in which the foreground is unusually open. Absent
are the compositional conventions—a tree and a dark,
diagonal wedge of shadow or hillside—that Van Goyen
used to introduce landscapes in the early 1630s.

The limited staffage in the Carter painting is absorbed
by the shadows and by the rich play of dark brown glazes
through which the tone of the panel is partially visible.

In the shadows of the foreground, two men rest, silhouetted
against the sunlit road where travelers pass. A two-wheeled
cart drawn by a horse and rider approaches the city from
which a covered wagon drawn by two oxen and a man
on horseback have departed. Almost totally obscured by late
afternoon shadows, cattle graze on the hillside in the right
foreground. Even the city itself seems to have been swal¬
lowed by the hillside. Only the distinctive massive square
tower of the Grote Kerk and the double towers of the
Sint-Walburgiskerk break the low horizon, which otherwise
stretches uninterrupted across the surface of the panel.
Moved left of the central position that it occupies in the 1633
version, the Grote Kerk stands guard over the broad valley
through which the river zigzags. Thinly applied light
blue, gray, and green paint suggests the shimmering effect
of light reflected on the water and draws the eye beyond
the dark hillside, through the flat river valley to the minute
steeples in the far distance. There, narrow horizontal
strokes of paint compress the space beneath the shifting
clouds of the vast sky to produce the subtle atmospheric
unity of the picture.

Painting swiftly with a limited palette of thin paint
and brown glazes. Van Goyen was able to economically
produce multiple versions of his views of Arnhem and other
cities to satisfy the market for inexpensive paintings of the
local landscape. By the early seventeenth century, the demand
for naturalistic views of the Dutch countryside had replaced
that for the fantastic landscapes of the previous century. The
change probably reflects the growing strength and signifi¬
cance of the Dutch cities as well as the interest in travel.

On one of the major routes by wagon from Utrecht
to Zutphen and by boat from Nijmegen and other cities
along the Rhine, Arnhem was frequently mentioned in
travel journals and guidebooks. Travelers passing through
Arnhem often chose to halt and stay at an inn to explore
the city. Guides could be hired to show them the city’s
monuments and recount the local history. Tourism had
always been a part of travel, but it was not until the prolif¬
eration of personal travel journals and guidebooks in the
late seventeenth century that the invitation to share in such
experiences was extended to the wider public. An excerpt
from the account of the English traveler John Farrington,
who visited Arnhem in 1710, is characteristic.

On the 17th, as soon as it was light, we hired a guide
and went to see the city.... The walks on the walls
round the city are very pleasant, the streets of the city
generally broad, and the town is well enough built. It
is situated on the river Rhine, the religion is Calvinist
but the toleration of other sects is unlimited.... The
chief buildings in the town are the court of the Heer
van Rozendaal, the court of the late King as stadholder
of the province, the Arsenal and the churches, which
are very good. In the Great Church is the tomb of the
last duke of Guelders, which is a very good one....

The weather was very good and the wind at east. About
half an hour after eight we left Arnhem and took
[a] waggon for Zutphen. 6

Van Goyen’s View of Arnhem portrays the city from
a distance so that its major monuments, including its
famous views of the Rhine Valley, are clearly identifiable.
Topographical paintings of local landmarks may have
been acquired by the inhabitants of those cities. The
contemporary interest in travel and tourism, however,
suggests that the paintings may have had a wider appeal
among those who could not regularly go to the hills or
the ramparts to view the landscape. Among these, of course,
may have been those nostalgic for their native cities, but
there may also have been others who were true tourists J

Van Goyen, View of Arnhem

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR12.1 Digital micrograph (175X magnification)
of the top edge of the painting showing the panel,
ground, and paint layers of the sky

The panel is approximately 14 inch
thick and cradled. The central horizon¬
tal member of the cradle is engraved
with the name de Wild. About 9 14 inches
from the top of the panel there is
a tight horizontal split or join. Insect
damage is visible on the bottom edge
of the panel.

Paint rolls over the edges of the wood
on the left and right sides, indicating
that they are intact. The top and bottom
of the painting, however, have been
cut. The bottom cut removed the lower
part of some of the signature and the
date, which were written in fairly thick
dark mauve paint: VGOYEN is mostly
present, but the top of the Y and much
of the E appear strengthened, and the

very lowest parts of the Y, the E, and the
N are missing. The first two digits of
the truncated date could be read as 16 ,
but the third digit is difficult to read
because it is cut off and toned; the
fourth digit could be the top of a 6.

The panel has a thin, off-white ground
that probably contains mostly chalk
(fig. TR12.1). The translucent layer
allows the warm color of the wood to
show through to the surface of the
painting and affect the overall tonality
of the landscape. Infrared reflectogra-
phy (IRR) 1 showed a minimal amount of
underdrawing. Thin lines designating
the horizon were found beneath
the paint. These are now visible to the
unaided eye due to the increased
transparency of the aged paint. Some
lines were also found in the architecture
and in some of the smaller buildings

on the right edge of the city. Not all
underdrawn lines were covered with
paint—many were left visible and
incorporated into the final composition
(fig. TR12.2). It was not possible to
determine with certainty what Van
Goyen used for the underdrawing, but
the thin lines suggest it is more likely
to have been a brush as opposed to
charcoal or black chalk, both of which
have a powdery, broken-up appearance.

This tonal painting was created with
a number of layers of thin, translucent
paint. The artist first applied the darker
colors of the landscape followed by the
lighter colors of the sky and landscape.

Van Goyen, View of Arnhem

Light blue, gray, and white/cream-
colored paints were applied with brushy,
thin applications in the sky, where
the clouds were developed with very
thin, warm glazes, much as in View
of Dordrecht (cat. no. n). The translucent
browns and greens of the landscape
are applied with small, squiggled
strokes; the lighter colors on the surface
are dashes and various other small
strokes with some relief. Buildings,
vessels, and figures were painted on top
of the landscape paint. The warm color
of the wood imparts a pinkish tonality
to the painting that helps to model
forms and gives brilliance to the light
colors of the sky and landscape.

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF)
and examination with a digital micro¬
scope identify, among other pigments,
lead white and smalt in the sky
and lead-tin yellow and copper-based
pigments in the landscape.

Restoration is both under and on top
of the varnish. The wood grain in the
sky, which had become more apparent,
has been toned. There is very little
restoration in the landscape. Two
parallel diagonal scratches, now toned,
run from the mid-sky at the right edge
to the landscape. The two birds to the
right of the large church at center
consist of simple dark strokes and are
certainly original. The other birds
are painted differently, and they may
have had some restoration. The bird at
the upper left appears to be painted
over an indentation in the wood. Ultra¬
violet light shows a yellowish fluorescing
varnish. The coating, which was sprayed,
is quite thick.

NOTE

i No interference bandpass filters were used in the
capturing of the IRR.

Van Goyen, View of Arnhem

Willem Claesz. Heda

(1594-1680)

Still Life with Tobacco, Beer,
and Wine, 1637

Oil on wood, 1654 x 2i54 in.

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

M.2003.108.4

Provenance

(42.2 x 54.3 cm)

Exhibitions

References

Signed and dated left of center, on edge of table:
HEDA/1637

till Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine belongs to a distinct
category of still-life painting called tabakje or toebakje ,
“little tobacco,” which was introduced in Haarlem
during the late 1620s by Willem Claesz. Heda and Pieter
Claesz. (see cat. no. 8). Typical of these, the Carter painting
includes clay pipes, a crumpled piece of paper containing
tobacco, and an earthenware brazier around which are
scattered zwavelstokjes used like modern matches to light
pipes. A glass of frothy beer, recommended to cool the throat
when smoking, a pewter jug, an overturned silver beaker,
and a delicate/^o/z venise wineglass complete the still life.

The compositional principles employed by Heda in
Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine are similar to those that
characterize his still lifes of simple meals as well as the
contemporary monochrome landscapes painted by Salomon
van Ruysdael (see cat. nos. 27,28), Jan van Goyen (see cat.
nos. 11,12), and others. Thinly painted, employing a limited
palette of warm ocher and cool olive-gray, the composition
is organized according to a visual diagonal dominated
by a pewter jug. A diagonal shaft of light cast from the upper
left animates the neutral back wall and provides a counter¬
balance to the objects.

Probably painting directly from objects he arranged
and observed in his studio rather than from individual
drawings, Heda created a cohesive composition in terms of
light and form. 1 The low vantage point, which makes the
objects appear to overlap, contributes to the viewer's reading
of pictorial depth. Heda increased the perception of space
by pulling the green cloth back to reveal the corner of
the table on which he carefully placed the pipes, overturned
silver beaker, and the brazier viewed from the corner.

A plate precariously balanced on the table's edge extends
forward. Subtle tonal gradations define the volumes of
the objects and capture the effect of their actual shadows
and reflections: for example, the reflections of the handle of
the pewter jug and the silver beaker on the belly of the
jug, the reflection of the brazier on the round metal box,
and the windows on the can and beer glass.

Tobacco was introduced from the New World to
England in 1560 by Sir Francis Drake and brought by sailors
through Dutch ports to the Netherlands by the 1580s.

The Dutch also encountered tobacco in the Caribbean, when
they were collecting salt, hides, and pearls, and later in

North America. In 1620 the New Netherlands colony began
exporting tobacco from the English colonies of Virginia
and Maryland. Shipped first on Dutch and later on English
vessels, tobacco from the English colonies and from the
environs of Venezuela became one of the most profitable
sources of revenue for the Dutch West India Company
(established in 1621). Soon, Amsterdam became the major
Continental market for tobacco leaves. 2 Encouraged by
Amsterdam's tobacco merchants and manufacturers,
between 1610 and 1620, farmers in the central and eastern
parts of the Netherlands began to cultivate a domestic
crop of tobacco that was typically used to cut the more
expensive imported products

During the early seventeenth century, the use and
abuse of tobacco was actively debated. Similar to today's
disputes about marijuana, the Dutch considered tobacco to
have remedial and medicinal value but distrusted and
generally decried its recreational use. In 1574 the Flemish
physician and herbalist Rembert Dodoens (1516-1585) had
noted the narcotic or stupefying effect tobacco had on its
users. 4 Many writers and preachers expressed concern about
the lower classes, especially sailors, who wasted their money
on “drinking” smoke, which they could not do without.

The excesses of the lower classes were frequently depicted
by Adriaen Brouwer (1605-1638), David Teniers the Younger
(1610-1690) (fig. 13.1), and others. So-called merry company
scenes painted by Willem Pietersz. Buytewech (1591/92-
1624), Dirck Hals (1591-1656), and their numerous followers
illustrate that tobacco was also associated with the social
deviance of sophisticated dandies who frequented inns
where “drinking” smoke as well as beer took place amid
gambling and whoring.

Heda's earliest known painting with smoking para¬
phernalia is dated 1628 (Museum Bredius, The Hague,
inv. no. 52-1946), the same year that Petrus Scriverius (1576-
1660) published Saturnalia ; written in Latin and translated
by Samuel Ampzing (1590-1639) in 1630, the pamphlet
was a major indictment against tobacco. 5 Heda's inclusion
of a skull in the Bredius painting, like Scriverius's illustra¬
tion for his title page that represents a skull resting on
two pipes (“Vanitas,” title page for Petrus Scriverius Satvrnalia,
1630, Rijksmuseum Research Library, Amsterdam, call
number 328 M 6), warns the viewer of the brevity of life and

Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine

the need to focus on spiritual concerns rather than earthly
pleasures. 6 Heda affirms the reference to vanitas in the
Bredius still life by including an open pocket watch and an
empty overturned rummer resting against the skull,
a device his friend Pieter Claesz. often employed, 7 adding to
one painting (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 943) the
inscription, “Het glas is leegh. De tijd is om. / De keers is
uyt. Den mens is stom” (The glass is empty. Time is up.

The candle is out. The man is mute).

Previous writers have also regarded the Carter paint¬
ing as a cautionary reference to transience. 8 The overt
references to moralizing found in the Bredius still life are,
however, absent in the Carter painting, dated nine years
later. There is no skull, and what has been assumed to
be a pocket watch—a familiar reference to the passage of
time—is actually a round, metal (probably brass) tobacco box
similar to one in the collection of Colonial Williamsburg,
Virginia (fig. 13.2). 9 Tobacco boxes are typically portrayed
together with pipes, a brazier, and zwavelstokjes, as in Pieter
Claesz/s Still Life with Jug, Herring, and Smoking Requisites,
dated 1644 (Harold Samuel Collection, Guildhall Art
Gallery, City of London, inv. no. 3714), in which the bowl of
a pipe rests on the open box, and in the Bredius still life, in
which it is oval. 10

The attitude toward smoking had begun to change
by the late 1630s. In 1636 the Dordrecht physician Johan
van Beverwijck (1594-1647) recommended in his Schatder
gesontheyt (Treasury of Good Health) that people “drink”

tobacco as a prophylactic against the plague, then raging in
the Netherlands. On its more general use, however, he
noted that opinion was divided. 11 Ivan Gaskell has suggested
that the change in attitude toward tobacco among the
middle and upper classes was related to the economic
importance of the tobacco industry in the Netherlands. 11
Amsterdam and Rotterdam were the principal Continental
ports of entry for tobacco, the majority of which was
then processed and exported. Domestically grown tobacco
also had become an important cash crop in the Netherlands.
Refinements in the design of the clay pipe—especially
extending the length of the stem so that the smoke cooled—
contributed to the acceptance of smoking by members
of the middle and upper classes. 13 Pipes made of English clay
were manufactured in the Dutch city of Gouda and shipped
to other cities, inclu-ding Amsterdam, where the pipe
market was located on the east side of the Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal (see cat. no. 2). 14

Thus, while it is possible that while Heda's contempo¬
raries continued to associate smoking and drinking
with transience and vanitas, the significance for both the
artist and the viewer of Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and
Wine may have had more to do with the aesthetic appeal of
the harmonious display of familiar objects than moralizing.
The long-stemmed pipes and refined objects that demon¬
strate the artist's skill in depicting different shapes and
materials may also have appealed to those purchasing the
painting for their reference to the popular, and by then
more socially acceptable, practice of smoking.

Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine

Fig. 13.1

Fig. 13.2

Fig. 13.1 David Teniers the Younger (1610-1690),

The Smoker, ca. 1640. Oil on panel, 17 14 x 13 H in.

(43.8 x 33.7 cm). Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
William Randolph Hearst Collection (inv. no. 47.29.18)

Fig. 13.2 English smoking pipes and a Dutch tobacco
box, ca. 1690-1720. The Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation

Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR13.1 Reverse of the wood panel

Fig. TR13.2 X-radiograph showing adjustments
such as the dense paint around the pitcher

Fig. TR13.3 The earlier positions of both the jug and
glass were evident in the IRR.

The wood panel is approximately 3 /s
inch thick and in good condition with
only a slight warp and small wood
losses at the corners. The reverse is
a little rough, and the bevels are notice¬
ably irregular (fig. TR13.1).

The medium-thin, cream-colored
ground transmits the grain and warmth
of the wood to affect the appearance of
the painting. Raking light picks out the
wood grain and the impastoed paint.
Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed
fine, sharp lines that mark out part
of the design; some of these can be seen
with the naked eye. The thinness of the
lines suggests that they were done with
a fine brush or an implement such
as a pen, graphite pencil, or metalpoint.
However, because many of these lines
are also visible in normal light, it is
difficult to confirm that they are in fact
underdrawn.

Heda laid in the design and shadows
with translucent, dark brown paint.
Over this first layer he brushed out local
colors from thick to thin to achieve fine
gradations from light to dark. Using
larger brushes, he energetically applied
the background paint, which contains
primarily lead white and ochers. The
green paint of the tablecloth, which
contains copper-based blue or green,
ocher, lead-tin yellow, and white
pigments, was brushed thinly over the
dark underpaint. The silvery appear¬
ance of the tabletop was achieved by
scumbling a light-colored paint
containing ocher-umber and lead-white
pigments over the dark underpaint.

The items on the table each exhibit
some notable painting techniques. The
glass vessels were painted with fine
strokes and washes of thin paint over
the background color. The wine in the
glass was indicated with a thin appli¬
cation of paint colored predominantly
with red lake. The surface of the
wine where it touches the front of the
glass has a fascinating construction

of two nearly adjacent layers. The lower
layer of paint contains pigments of
white chalk and possibly iron oxide for
a warm, translucent white, while the
layer above contains mostly lead white
for a bright, cool, opaque white. The
eye perceives the illusion of liquid but
cannot by itself distinguish the differ¬
ent whites.

The shaded side of the beaker was
rendered with a thin layer of gray paint.
The etched design on the metal beaker
was painted with dark paint in several
rows of regular loops or figure eights.
The thickest paints describe the white
paper and the stems of the pipes. The
glowing ashes were accomplished with
multiple fine strokes of thick paint of
various tones, which contain the
pigments vermilion, lead-tin yellow,
ochers, and lead white. The tobacco has
lively brushwork done with fine

Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine

brushes. The brazier was laid in with
an ocher-colored paint that was
partially covered with a pinkish one.

X-radiography and IRRshow changes
and adjustments that occurred during
the painting stage, particularly in
the placement of vessels on the table
(fig. TR13.2), and some of these adjust¬
ments are visible in normal viewing
conditions. For instance, the pewter jug
and the crystal wineglass were origi¬
nally closer together: the body of the
jug was painted farther to the right and
the glass farther to the left (fig. TR13.3).
However, the handle of the jug was
originally farther to the left, so that the
jug may have been larger, viewed from
a different angle, or perhaps was a
different shape. These two objects were
painted in with a carbon-black pigment
before being adjusted.

The artist signed in deep violet-red
paint (probably a lake) on the dry paint
of the brown table; he then scumbled
a light brownish color on top to create
a more silvery appearance consistent
with the overall effect of the table. The

signature sits proud on the surface and
appears in good state. Examination
of the date with higher magnification
showed that the 163 is original; however,
the last digit is difficult to read since
it appears damaged and restored. The
three horizontal lines beneath the
date may have original paint but seem
mostly restored.

The painting reads well and remains
strong. There is some abrasion due to
solvent damage. Ultraviolet light
exposed restorations and toning of the
wood grain in the background and
in the lower left corner. The wineglass
is somewhat abraded and lightly
enhanced. The edges of the painting
appear worn for about % inch into
the painting. The varnish, semimatte
and uniform, does not saturate the
paints. Under magnification it appears
whitish as if wax had been added.

The surface has a dense, ocher-tinged
fluorescence in ultraviolet light,
possibly because of some addition.

Heda, Still Life with Tobacco, Beer, and Wine

Jan van der Heyden

(1637-1712)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed
from the Leliegracht, ca. 1666-70
Oil on wood, 1314 x 15 s /s in.

(33-7 x 39.7 cm)

Signed at the right, on the quay: VH

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
and purchased with funds provided by The
Ahmanson Foundation, the Mr. and Mrs. Allan C.
Balch Collection by exchange, and Hannah L. Carter
M.2009.106.24

J an van der Heyden painted at least four views of the
west side of the bend in the old section of the
Herengracht (Gentlemen's Canal). 1 The location of some
of the grandest patrician houses built in the seventeenth
century, it remains one of the most prestigious addresses in
Amsterdam (fig. 14.1). In all but the Carter painting. Van
der Heyden represents the canal from the south (fig. 14.2).
Here he faces the opposite direction, which allows him
to take advantage of the bend in the canal to create a more
dynamic composition. Viewed from a low vantage point,
probably from a boat, the reinforced corner of the intersec¬
tion of the Herengracht and the Leliegracht rises in the
foreground, marking the start of the dramatic sweep of the
canal's retaining wall toward the bridge by the Warmoessluis.
The sudden reduction in the scale of the trees bordering the
canal, dipping to reveal the sunlit mansions for which the
Herengracht is known, accentuates the bend in the canal.
Beneath the blue sky with its billowing fair-weather clouds,
light dances on the water, through the bridge, and between
the trees, creating a lively pattern of light and shadow that
integrates the composition and counterbalances the precise
detail that characterizes Van der Heyden's work.

According to his earliest biographer, Arnold Houbraken
(1660-1719), Van der Heyden drew from life and later exe¬
cuted the scene on panel. Infrared reflectography (IRR) of
the Carter painting reveals an assured underdrawing of
the buildings, canal, and trees with limited pentimenti and
no perspectival marks, suggesting that Van der Heyden
may have partially transferred the design from a now-lost
compositional drawing of the buildings based on drawings
made on the site (see Technical Report). Arie Wallert has
reported similar findings for other paintings by the artist
that have been studied with IRR. 2 Although virtually no
preparatory sketches for Van der Heyden's paintings exist,
his employment of transfer drawings is also indicated by
a red chalk counterproof of the well-developed lost prepara¬
tory drawing for View of the Oudezijds Voorhurgwal with the
OudeKerk in Amsterdam (Mauri tshuis. The Hague, inv. no. 868)
as well as by the few extant drawings he made in preparation
for the illustrations in Beschryvingdernieuwlijks uitgevonden en
geoctrojeerdeslang-brand-spuiten en haarewijzevan hrand-hlussen,
tegenwoordigbinnenAmsterdam ingebruikzijnde. ... (Description
of the Newly Invented and Patented Fire Hose Engines
with Water Hoses and the Method of Fighting Fires Now
Used in Amsterdam), the book he and his son Jan published
on firefighting in Amsterdam in 1690. Starting with draw¬
ings he made of the actual architecture and setting. Van der
Heyden created the composition, often only loosely based
on the actual scene. Once he had finalized the composition,
he covered the reverse of the drawing with chalk or charcoal
and used a stylus to transfer the outlines of the design to
the prepared panel or copperplate, making minor freehand

adjustments. The transfer process undoubtedly weakened
or destroyed the drawings, explaining their disappearance.^

Van der Heyden was a keen observer of the visual
effects of light filtered through the trees and reflected on
the buildings and still water of the canal. 4 His ability to
translate these impressions into paint is also evident in his
treatment of the mortar between the bricks on the wall
parallel to the picture plane, where water from the pump
has stained the brick. Along the receding wall of the
Herengracht, where he applied paint to suggest shadows
and reflections of light, the texture of the bricks appears
more uniform, unaltered by atmospheric perspective.

Houbraken remarked about Van der Heyden's detail:
“He painted every little stone in the building so minutely
that one could clearly see the mortar in the grooves in the
foreground as well as the background.... He also took into
account the diminishing of the stones according to the
reduction in size of the buildings.'' 5 Houbraken suspected
that the artist had “invented a means whereby... he could
accomplish things that seem impossible with the customary
ways of painting.'' 6

An ingenious engineer who, with his brother Nicolaas,
invented the fire-hose pump and introduced streetlights
to Amsterdam, Jan van der Heyden devised new techniques
to render detailed brickwork and foliage in his paintings.

In 1800 Bernardus de Bosch, a distant relative of Van der
Heyden's, delivered a lecture in which he discussed the artist's
prentenschilderijen (literally, “print paintings''). 7 According
to De Bosch, the artist used prints made from etched or
engraved copperplates of different sizes and shapes to trans¬
fer patterns of bricks, cobblestones, windows, and doors
to the prepared surface of a painting. Although there is no
evidence that he glued paper to the painting, microscopic
examination of the Carter painting and others confirms
that Van der Heyden probably transferred patterns from
paper printed with black and sometimes light colors to
achieve the effect of rough mortar and other details praised
by connoisseurs. 8 For the leaves on the trees, the artist
apparently used yet another technique that was far more
efficient than a traditional brush: he dipped small pieces of
lichen or moss in different colors of paint. In this way he
created the realistic impression of individual leaves massed
on the branches. 9

Scholars have often questioned whether Van der
Heyden employed optical devices to achieve the appearance
of realism in his paintings. 10 Most recently, writing about the
views of the Herengracht including the Carter painting,
Peter Sutton noted, “the visual brilliance, the ways in which
the images are composed and cropped, as well as scalar
juxtapositions could have readily been influenced by the
experience of viewing comparable prospects in a camera
obscura.'' 11 The way in which the height of the trees rises

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from the Leliegracht

both with the wall of the canal in the right foreground and
the distant bridge suggested to John Walsh and Cynthia
Schneider that Van der Heyden may have used a concave lens,
which would collapse distances. 12 While Van der Heyden
probably did employ an optical device in developing the
composition of the Carter painting, it appears that he may
have used it only for the canal itself and not for the buildings.
Instead, the buildings seem to follow a more traditional
diagonal line of one-point recession recommended in popu¬
lar treatises on perspective and followed in Van der Heyden's
other views of the scene from the opposite direction.

As in many of his other paintings. Van der Heyden
here took liberties in depicting the houses along the bend in
the Herengracht while retaining the appearance of reality.
Rising above the trees, lit by the brilliant sunlight, the
buildings depicted are, left to right, Herengracht 182-170
(fig. 14.3). 13 On the far left at number 182 is the large, double
house known as the Sonnewyzer Huis; next to it, number
180, a tall building with a scalloped roof profile that actually
stood on the location, has been reduced in scale so that it
appears similar to the two houses at 176 and 178. On the far
right, barely visible through the trees, is the famous
Bartolotti Huis (170 and 172), which, like the Sonnewyzer
Huis, was designed in the style of Hendrick de Keyser
the Elder (1565-1621). 14 The major focus of this painting is
number 174, immediately to the left of the Bartolotti Huis.
Acquired in 1641 for 36,365 guilders, the house was owned
by Abraham Alewijn (1607-1679), a linen merchant and
East Indies trader. His brother Frederick Alewijn (1606-
1665) lived at number 182, the Sonnewyzer Huis that had
been acquired in 1630 by their father, Dirck Dircksz. Alewijn
(1571-1637), a linen merchant and prominent landowner
and representative of the Beemster, one of the major land
reclamation projects in the Netherlands. As the eldest son,
Frederick had inherited the house on the Herengracht
and the property in the Beemster. 15 Both he and his brother
also shared in the division of their father's art collection
in 1637. 16 Following Frederick's death in 1665, the approxi¬
mate date of the painting, the property passed to his son
Dirck Alewijn (1644-1687), who is portrayed with his
wife, Agatha Bicker (1647-1716), in companion portraits
by Nicolaes Maes (1634-1693) now at the Norton
Simon Museum, Pasadena (inv. nos. F.1972.43.3.1.P and
F.1972.43.3.2. P). B

Although the specificity of the scene suggests that
the painting could have been a commission, possibly
by a member of the Alewijn family, there is no evidence to
support the theory. The painting remained in Van der
Heyden's possession until his death in 1712, almost fifty years
after it was painted. In an inventory dated 1692 the artist
described the painting as “the Herengracht, Amsterdam,
Viewed from the Leliegracht.'' In the inventory of Van der
Heyden's widow, who died shortly after her husband in 1712,
the painting is described as the bend in the Herengracht
with the Warmoessluys in the distance. 18 Among the known
works by Van der Heyden, only the Carter painting matches
this description.

The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from the Leliegracht
reflects the contemporary market for images of popular
tourist attractions in books, prints, and paintings, including
Emanuel de Witte's paintings of the tomb of William
the Silent (see cat. no. 35) and Gerrit Berckheyde's of the
Amsterdam Town Hall (see cat. no. 2), as well as the numer¬
ous views of the bleaching fields of Haarlem by Jacob van
Ruisdael (1628/29-1682). Scenes of foreign cities and country
houses appear throughout Van der Heyden's oeuvre, but
paintings of Amsterdam predominate, reflecting his pride
in the famous city, which dominated the economy of the
Netherlands and attracted attention for its architecture and
tree-lined canals. Foreign visitors often commented in
their travel journals on the wealth of greenery in Dutch
towns, where trees were planted not only for protection
from the wind and sun but also for their aesthetic effect and
the transforming capacity of color, fragrance, regularity,
and ornament, turning public spaces into pleasurable
experiences capable of recalling the countryside. In 1641,
for example, the English diarist John Evelyn (1620-1706)
wrote that in Amsterdam nothing surprised him more than
the straight, uniform streets, “especially, being so fre¬
quently planted and shaded with the beautifull lime trees,
set in rowes before every man's house, affording a very
ravishing prospect.'' 19

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from the Leliegracht

Fig. 14.1

Fig. 14.2

Fig-14-3

Fig. 14.1 The Herengracht, 2013

Fig. 14.2 Jan van der Heyden, Houses on the Herengracht,
n.d. Oil on panel, 14 Vs x 1 7% in. (35.9 x 44.6 cm).
Edward and Sally Speelman Collection, London

Fig. 14.3 CasparJacobsz. Philips (ca. 1732-1789),
detail of “Diagram of Houses on Herengracht,”
from Allen de huizen op de Heeren-en Keizers-grachten der
stad Amsterdam, ca. 1790. Getty Research Institute,

Los Angeles, Special Collections (inv. no. 87-B2070)

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR14.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR14.2 Detail of IRR showing transferred and
freehand lines in trees

The wood panel, which is about 3 /i 6 inch
thick, has been thinned and cradled.
There are no bevels. Thin wood strips
(Vs inch wide) are attached to each
side with nails. The thin pink ground
barely covers the wood. With magnifica¬
tion, the wood of the panel is visible
in numerous spots.

Van der Heyden made minor changes
from the drawing while painting,
particularly in the architecture. The
X-radiograph does not show any
obvious changes, however. Extensive
and detailed underdrawing was
observed in infrared reflectography
(IRR) (fig. TR14.1). 1 Although there are
several small pentimenti or changes
(mainly in the architecture), Van der
Heyden stayed close to the underdraw¬
ing and changed very little in the actual
painting. The changes he did make
simplified the composition by omitting
small, fussy details. Close examination
suggested that he may have used more

than one technique for the underdraw¬
ing: a transfer drawing that was
developed with freehand drawing and
that included brushed washes.

The numerous doubled lines, stops,
starts, and differences in line intensity
seen in the IRR suggest that Van der
Heyden may have transferred at least
part of the design (the central archi¬
tecture and trees on the right side) from
a drawing on paper. This was a tech¬
nique he used for parts of at least some
of his other highly detailed architec¬
tural prints and paintings. 2 The absence
of perspective guidelines in the under¬
drawing further supports the idea that
the drawing was transferred. Such
guidelines, which may have been used
in the original drawing to accurately
depict the recession of buildings, would
not need to be transferred. This contrasts

with the technique of Emanuel de
Witte, who drew perspective guidelines
as part of his underdrawing directly
on the ground of his paintings (see cat.
nos. 35,36).

After transferring the drawing to the
prepared panel, Van der Heyden added
details freehand that develop the
drawing and make his work more spon¬
taneous and lively. 3 The looping,
swirling, hatched lines that are found
in the foliage of the trees to the right
appear to have been done with pen and
a liquid medium containing carbon-
black pigment (fig. TR14.2). In IRR the
lines appear solidly black and uniform
in width, changing only when the
direction of the pen's nib was angled.
The fact that there are no underdrawn
architectural lines beneath the freehand
foliage of the trees further supports the
idea that the buildings were transferred
and the foliage added later to create

100

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht

Fig. TR14.3 Digital micrograph (50X magnification)
of the upper sky showing the blue-smalt-containing
surface paint applied over the light gray layer

transitions between sections of the
painting. 4 The numerous lines in the
tree trunks to the right may also be
freehand additions to transferred lines
made by the artist. These lines are either
thicker and darker or thinner and
lighter in the infrared reflectogram, and
this suggests they were created using
different techniques.

The IRR also suggests that Van der
Heyden used brushed washes in areas of
the composition, such as the sky and
buildings, to denote shadows and
clouds. These areas do not always corre¬
spond with paints on the surface; they
are detectable only because of the
carbon-black pigment in the wash. It is
not known if these washes are a late part
of the underdrawing or if they belong
to the painting stage. 5

Paints range from thick and pasty
light colors to thin glazes applied in
a number of ways. The ground is
left exposed in many areas. Thin paints
of the roofs of the buildings and many
other areas, such as the water, have
unblended, narrow strokes of paint
applied in a free, open manner, less
precise than the overall appearance of
the painting.

The sky was laid in with a cool, very
light gray paint layer. Bright smalt
mixed with white was applied over the
gray layer. The thickness of the smalt
layer varies; where it is thin, the
underlayer shows and imparts a sense
of the sky's atmosphere (fig. TR14.3).

Van der Heyden left reserves in the sky
and clouds for the buildings and trees.
Even the larger branches jutting into
the sky have reserves; however, many of
the branches, especially those at the
top of the picture, were painted over the

blue sky. The light pink behind the trees
on the right side of the picture is the
reserve for architecture that, except for
the faint finial and tops of buildings at
the far right, was only marginally
developed. There is an unpainted strip
at the juncture of the architecture and
the sky that appears to be the pink
ground; this type of division of forms
exists throughout the painting. The
architecture and the canal in the lower
part of the painting were painted
directly on the ground, which shows in
the open brushwork.

The artist apparently applied the paint
for the foliage with lichen or sponges to
gain the desired texture and form of the

101

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht

Fig. TR14.4 Detail of sunlit leaves at right center
were probably applied by daubing on paint with
lichen or a sponge and possibly also with a brush.

leaves (fig. TR14.4). The textured paint
ranging in color from light blue
to gray-blue may have been glazed to
produce the appropriate color, but the
pigments may have faded. Thin green
and brown paint applied with a brush
established the design before the
textured foliage was applied. The foli¬
age paint contains at least the pigments
lead-tin yellow, ochers and green earth,
and copper-based pigments.

The mortar lines were applied over the
already painted local color for the brick
walls, but some paint was also added
over the mortar for shadows (fig. TR14.5).
The light-colored mortar lines usually
sit proud on the surface. The dark colors
are thinner but have thick dots. Arie
Wallert has described Van der Heydehs
use of a counterproof technique
to transfer the mortar patterns to his
paintings. By pressing a fresh impres¬
sion of an etching of the brick pattern,
ink side down, against the painting,
the artist transferred the ink from the
wet paper to the desired areas of the
painting. 6

The condition of the painting appears
good. The wood grain, which had
become more apparent in the sky, has
been toned. Some areas of shadow in
the foreground and in the trees appear
a little thinned from cleaning. The
painting was cleaned in 1974 at LACMA
of a varnish that appears very discolored
in documentary photographs. The
painting presently has a clear varnish,
probably an acrylic, which saturates
fairly well. However, ultraviolet light
shows remnants of a very fluorescent
varnish (green in appearance) that
was unevenly cleaned at some time in
the past. This varnish is probably earlier
than the varnish cleaned by the museum
in 1974-

102

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht

Fig. TR14.5 Digital micrograph (25X magnification)
of the bricks of the canal wall and light and dark
mortar

NOTES

1 The infrared reflectogram was taken with the
i6oonm interference bandpass filter, which gave
better penetration of the upper paint layers,
sharpened the image, and provided more contrast
between the carbon-black underdrawing
materials and the calcium-carbonate ground.

2 Wallert 2006-7, pp- 92-96.

3 Wallert 2006-7, p- 96, has found that Van der
Heyden reinforced more significant transferred
architectural lines with graphite and a straight¬
edge. This would make some lines appear darker
inIRR.

4 If an artist were drawing directly on the panel,
he would probably first draw the entire building
to ensure accuracy and then draw or paint foliage
over it. Van der Heyden was known to have
combined different groups of buildings trans¬
ferred from his drawings, occasionally reversing
them. Trees and foliage drawn freehand aided the
smooth transitions (in terms of perspective)
from one transferred group of buildings to another.
See Wallert 2006-7, P- 95 -

5 Wallert 2006-7, P- 95 > mentions that Van der
Heyden used a paint of carbon black and

lead white to lay in gray areas of shadow after the
underdrawing.

6 Wallert 2006-7, PP- 98-100.

103

Van der Heyden, The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed from theLeliegracht

Meindert Hobbema

(1638-1709)

Landscape with Anglers

and a Distant Town , ca. 1664-65

Oil on wood, 9% x 12^ in. (23.8 x 31.8 cm)

Signed lower left: m. hobbema

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.7

Landscape with a Footbridge, ca. 1664-65
Oil on wood, 9% x 12J 4 in. (23.8 x 31.8 cm)

Signed right, on bridge: m. hobbema

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.8

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

104

M eindert Hobbema's two landscapes entered the
Carter collection separately but shared the same
provenance between 1817 and 1962. Although
collectors and dealers in the eighteenth and early nine¬
teenth century often paired paintings as companion pieces,
the similar, unusually small dimensions of these paintings
and their complementary idyllic compositions suggest that
Hobbema indeed painted them to hang together. When
placed side by side, with Landscape with Anglers and a Distant
Town to the left of Landscape with a Footbridge , 1 the open areas
of each landscape align, and the general compositional
structures complement each other.

In Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, a rutted
road invites the viewer to enter the picture on the left
and to continue, guided by the reflections of the sky on the
water, along the edge of the still, swampy water that pools
around the grove of trees where two anglers have cast their
lines. In Landscape with a Footbridge, bright light draws
attention to the distant left and visually leads the viewer
along the edge of a swampy area that appears to have
once functioned as the road but is now washed out. Two
people in conversation mark the point where the road
takes a detour to the right between a half-timbered house
and a stand of trees and continues forward to where a man
with a pack and walking stick approaches the bridge. Another
man and his dog traverse the bridge in the foreground.

The subjects of the two Carter paintings are typical of
Hobbema, who almost exclusively represented idyllic scenes
of the light-filled countryside in the vicinity of villages.
When present, figures are of only minor importance, contri¬
buting, as here, to the quiet, optimistic mood of a peaceful
landscape, where people relax, chat with their neighbors, or
quietly fish—always personal pleasures rather than
commercial ventures. Although Wilhelm von Bode praised
the companion pieces for their fresh treatment and rich
color and remarked that they “give the impression of having
been painted directly from nature,” the landscape scenes,
which follow a relatively standard format, were undoubtedly
fanciful and produced in Hobbema's studio in Amsterdam. 2
He probably based specific motifs on drawings he made
from life, but the similarity of other motifs to those in works
by Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29-1682), who was also working
in Amsterdam at that time, suggests that Hobbema had
access to his paintings.

Hobbema's sunlit road and a river encircling a group
of prominent trees, as well as the articulation of swampy
areas in which trees are reflected, are devices often employed
by Van Ruisdael. In paintings of the 1650S-60S such as
the Carter's The Great Oak, dated 1652 (see cat. no. 25), and
the Norton Simon Museum's Wooded Landscape with a Pool and
Figures (inv. no. M.1969.33.P), of about 1660, Van Ruisdael
used a broad rutted road, often passing through water,
to draw the viewer visually into the scene and connect to the
sunlit distance. Hobbema's depiction of trees reflected
in swampy water was undoubtedly shared by the example
of Van Ruisdael, who also took up the motif in the 1660s
in such works as Oaks at a Lake with Water Lilies, 1665-70
(Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 885G). 3

While similarities exist between Hobbema and Van
Ruisdael, Hobbema's treatment of color and especially light
distinguishes his paintings from those of the older master.
Whereas Van Ruisdael's light and shade create dramatic,
often moody landscapes in which land and sky combine to
create a unified composition, Hobbema's compositions
are lighter and more open. In his work, light is dispersed
throughout the landscapes, drawing attention from place to
place in a decorative rather than unifying manner. Hobbema's
foliage and tree branches are also more delicate than Van
Ruisdael's and allow light to filter through, thus giving the
leaves a lacy effect. Detached areas of light gray and pastel
blues and greens that suggest the effect of the sun caught on
the surfaces of trees and buildings add to the overall
decorative quality characteristic of Hobbema's paintings.

Although in 1660 Van Ruisdael stated that Hobbema
had been his student and worked with him for some years,
his strong influence on the younger artist is only evi¬
dent from about 1662. Comparison of the Carters' two small
paintings to larger compositions by Hobbema, such as
A View on a High Road, dated 1665 (National Gallery of Art,
Washington, DC, inv. no. 1937.1.62), suggests that they date
from about 1664-65. This proposed dating is further
supported by the form of the signature that appears on each
of the paintings: m. Hobbema. According to Wolfgang
Stechow, the artist used this form of his signature between
1661 and 1667. 4

105

Hobbema, Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, Landscape with a Footbridge

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TRi5,i6.i Infrared reflectogram of Landscape
with Anglers and a Distant Town

Fig. TRi5,i6.2 Infrared reflectogram of Landscape
with a Footbridge

Fig. TR1546.3 Digital micrograph (175X
magnification) of a tree limb from Landscape with a
Footbridge

Each panel is about 14 inch thick and
cradled. No bevels are present. Neither
panel's right side is perfectly square.
Also on both panels, the top and bottom
stationary members of the cradle have
a lip that adds approximately Vz inch to
the height. The panels are planar.

The panels have double grounds that
consist of a thick, cream-colored ground
applied directly to the wood and
a thin red-pink ground on top. Infrared
reflectography (IRR) did not reveal
any underdrawings (figs. TRis,i6.i,
TRi5,i6.2), 1 although it revealed that
both landscapes were laid in with
brushed lines of dark brown paint con¬
taining carbon black. Some of these
lines are underneath upper paint layers,

while others are fully visible on the paint
surface. As such, it is difficult to say
with certainty that these lines are under¬
drawn. As other Dutch landscape
painters from this period did, Hobbema
may have incorporated underdrawing
and integrated it with the final painting
composition.

Nonetheless, this thin, translucent dark
color is visible beneath the gray church
steeple in Landscape with a Footbridge.
Paints range from transparent darks,
which are thickly layered in some areas
to give some relief to the surface, to
pasty, opaque whites and grays, which
in some areas are pulled to such
thinness over the red ground that the
ground color is visible. In Landscape with
a Footbridge some pentimenti were found
in IRR indicating an extra tree and
some planks in the bridge that were not
visible on the surface of the painting.

The clouds in both paintings were
painted with stiff brushes that left
marks of the bristles. The upper parts of
the trees were painted over the clouds,
which are quite dense in the center. The
figures were painted over the painted
landscape.

In both paintings the pigment smalt
was found in the paint of the sky mixed
with lead white. Tiny craters in the
paint of the sky may be due to the
formation of lead soaps. The paint of
the foliage incorporates copper- and
iron-based pigments, such as green
earth and lead-tin yellow. A daubing
technique may also have been used
in the initial application of the foliage,
which was then glazed with copper
resinate or yellow lake. On the surface

106

Hobbema, Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, Landscape with a Footbridge

small brushes described the leaves. The
limbs of the trees were painted in part
with a deep violet paint that contains
carbon black mixed with a purple lake,
as seen in Landscape with a Footbridge
(fig. TR15,16.3).

The signature m hobbema on Landscape
with Anglers and a Distant Town is painted
with a very dark reddish to black paint.
The letters of the signature are a little
abraded, particularly after the ho.

There could be slight reinforcement,
but cracks are visible in the “reinforce¬
ment,” suggesting it may actually
be original.

The signature m hobbema in lowercase
script on Landscape with a Footbridge
is painted with lemon-yellow-colored
paint mixed with white, and it is in
good condition.

The paintings are in good condition.
However, in both works toning in the
sky subdues the wood grain, which
had become more apparent with time,
and also covers the lead soap craters.
Additionally, there is some thinning of
surface paints. Ultraviolet light shows
a very fluorescent greenish-yellow
varnish, which could be a natural resin.

To determine whether Hobbema had
painted the two panels as one, the
IR reflectograms were aligned end to
end in both orientations to see if there
were any marks, damages, or under¬
drawing that could link the panels;
none was found.

NOTE

1 Interference bandpass filters (i2oonm, i4oonm,
i6oonm) were used during the IRR examination.
No filters were used during the capturing of the
IRR. This was to ensure that underdrawing
materials, such as iron-gall ink (which disappears
at i6oonm), would not be blocked by a filter.

107

Hobbema, Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town, Landscape with a Footbridge

Jan van Huysum

(1682-1749)

Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn , 1724

Oil on mahogany, 31 Vz x 23 Vz in.

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.91.164.2

(80 x 59.7 cm)

Provenance

Signed and dated lower right, on edge of ledge:

Exhibitions

Jan Van Huysum / fecit 1724

References

io8

D ated 1724, approximately one hundred years

after Ambrosius Bosschaerts Bouquet of Flowers on
a Ledge (cat. no. 4) Jan van Huysuiris Bouquet of
Flowers in an Urn represents a distinctly different aesthetic in
terms of scale, composition, coloration, and selection of
flowers. Like Bosschaert, Van Huysum placed his still life on
a ledge set in front of a landscape. The effect, however, is
entirely different. Whereas Bosschaert described each blos¬
som according to its individual form and color, setting
the symmetrical bouquet against an equally vibrant sky and
landscape. Van Huysum sought to integrate his composi¬
tion both coloristically and spatially. Harmonious color
combinations imbue his composition with a decorative
quality that reflects the taste of the early eighteenth century.

Van Huysuiris asymmetrical bouquet is a virtual
explosion of flowers. Set in an Italian terracotta garden urn
decorated with putti in bas-relief, similar to those painted
by his contemporary Jacob de Wit (1695-1754), and placed
on a pink marble parapet against a misty park landscape,
the flowers twist and turn, overlapping each other as they
fight for space and light. 1 At the summit of the bouquet that
mounts diagonally toward the upper right are a red crown
imperial and the smaller red turban-cap lily, exotic flowers
introduced to the Netherlands from Asia in the seventeenth
century. Next to them are common apple blossoms. A wilt¬
ing white tulip striped with purple is suspended by its
broken stem over the edge of the urn and projects forward
at the lower end of the bouquet. Rather than tulips, so
prized in the previous century. Van Huysuiris selection of
hyacinths, double poppy anemones, peonies, and roses
reflects the popular taste of the early eighteenth century for
more decorative flowers. Voluptuous blossoms past their
prime cascade over the urn. A large red double peony lies
face down on the marble parapet, followed by a white
anemone with red stripes suspended by a long stem that
forms a graceful arabesque. At the core of the bouquet are
more peonies and at the right, a yellow rose that became
known as a “Van Huysum rose” (fig. 17.1). Morning glories,
golden flax, and honeysuckle, suspended on delicate stems,
animate the composition and contribute to the lively
decorative effect.

Van Huysum began his still lifes by working out the
compositions in drawings. Executed in watercolor and
corrected with charcoal or chalk, the drawings capture the
general massing and rhythms of the composition while
only summarily suggesting individual flowers. To develop
the complicated bouquet with its unusual, often contorted,
views of different flowers, he may have employed a tech¬
nique described by his contemporary Gerard de Lairesse
(1640-1711) in the conclusion to his chapter “Of Flowers” in
hi s Art of Fainting:

Take a Parcel of Flowers of all Sorts, made of Paper or
Silk, and with wired

Stalks, as they are sold by the Tire-women. Now, if you
would make a Group,

Festoon, or Basket of Flowers, or any such Thing,

order and shift those Flowers

by and upon one another, as they suit best; and thus

you may exercise your self in

Winter time, when you cannot have the Life; because

those Flowers never wither. 2

Infrared reflectography (IRR) of the Carter painting
indicates that Van Huysum started by marking the center
of the prepared panel with vertical and horizontal lines and
then establishing the lines of the parapet (see Technical
Report). Using a brush, he laid out the composition, which
he later reworked in places with chalk. The sketch on the
panel appears to be an elaboration of a closely related
compositional drawing on paper (fig. 17.2). Executed in black
chalk and watercolor, the drawing indicates the general
organization of the still life with the crown imperial at the
upper right, the sweeping stem of the broken tulip, and the
peony resting on the parapet. Van Huysum used a second,
smaller drawing, executed in pen and brown ink with wash,
to work out areas of light and shadow (Kupferstichkabinett,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. KdZ 2816).

After establishing his composition. Van Huysum
must have sought models of the individual flowers. The
repetition of certain flowers, sometimes reversed, suggests
that he maintained a collection of drawings and paintings

109

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

for reference in developing his painted bouquets, although
no drawings of individual flowers by him are known.

He probably also painted directly from actual flowers and
drawings by other artists. Writing in 1757, Antoine-Joseph
Dezailler d'Argenville (1680-1765) noted that in spring
and summer Van Huysum drew and painted flowers from
his own garden as well as those sent to him by flower growers
in Haarlem and Amsterdam. 3 Although it may reflect
a conceit. Van Huysum wrote to Christian Ludwig (1683-
1756), who with his son Friedrich had begun to collect Dutch
paintings at Mecklenburg-Schwerin, that he had not fin¬
ished a flower piece the previous year because he could not
obtain a yellow rose. Another letter refers to his practice
of working up individual objects one by one. Referring to
a painting he had almost finished, he wrote, “and on
the fruit piece, the grapes, figs and pomegranate have to
be painted in.” 4

The light yellowish-green, park-like background of
Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, which appears to be a contin¬
uation of the same space, is characteristic of Van Huysum's
mature floral still lifes produced after 1720. His earlier
compositions are set against the traditional, undefined,
dark background used by Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1684)
and others. It was reportedly Lambert ten Kate (1674-1731),
the Amsterdam linguist and connoisseur, who urged Van
Huysum to abandon the dark backgrounds and use lighter
colors. 5 These light landscape backgrounds, which contrib¬
ute to a more delicate and ultimately more decorative
image, were considered a major innovation. According to
Van Huysum's first biographer, Johan van Gool:

[H]e placed his charming flowers not only against dark
grounds, in elegant vases with artful bas-reliefs, in the
known manner of De Heem and Mignon.... He also
set them off against light grounds, even against clear
skies and beautiful landscapes, an artistic trick,
unknown for his time, never seen before, and it was
immediately embraced with cheer and approved by
the most excellent amateurs. 6

In Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, the light background,
which is typically darker on the left side, contributes to the
overall harmony of colors and decorative quality of the
composition. Transitions between similar colors suggest
movement. Individual flowers cast shadows within the

bouquet, while light seems to permeate it, illuminating
flowers such as the overblown tulip hidden behind the large
white peony in the center. Applying paint wet-on-wet in
thin and not completely opaque layers, he defined the
different textures of the flowers—the smooth, silky texture
of the tulip built up with thicker paint differs from the
thin, delicate petals of the crown imperial and the dense
quality of the hyacinth and the smooth surface of the urn
and stone parapet (see Technical Report). Van Huysum
reserved his thickest paint for the foremost flowers that
appear in the front of the bouquet, defining flowers in
the background on the fringes, such as the gold narcissus
on the left and the red poppy anemone on the right, with
thinner paint so that they appear to recede. In 1678 Samuel
van Hoogstraten had described this common painter's trick:

tangibility [kenlijkheyt] alone makes the objects appear
nearby, and conversely that smoothness [egaelheyt] makes
them recede, and I therefore desire that that which
is to appear on the foreground be painted roughly and
briskly, and that which is to recede be painted more
neatly and purely the further away it lies. 7

Van Huysum's immense popularity during his lifetime
and later was due to an appreciation of his harmonious
compositions that demonstrate his keen powers of observa¬
tion and incredible skill in representing the textures of
flowers, leaves, and fruit at every stage of growth, as well as
the minute insects and dewdrops that appear naturalisti-
cally on the petals and leaves. His still lifes with their park
landscapes, bright hues, and classicizing motifs decorating
terracotta vases particularly suited the contemporary French
style, which swept through Europe during the late seven¬
teenth and early eighteenth centuries. Contemporary poets
extolled Van Huysum's power to re-create nature in paint: 8

The harsh North frost may boast of its great powers.
Oppressing my garden and menacing it each year:
Now I ne'er fear the cold will kill my flowers.

Spoke Flora, when first Van HUYSUM's art she saw.
Capturing Nature's acme in earthly stars:

O Lights of Heaven! You grace the vault of night.
While these do shine most beauteously by day:

Thus does his brush create a deathless Spring.

This Phoenix, who enchants the world with paint.
Deserves a wreath of letters that ne'er can fade. 9

110

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

Fig. 17.1

Fig. 17.2

Fig. 17.1 Detail of cat. no. 17

Fig. 17.2 Jan van Huysum, Keizerskroon, pioen en andere
bloemen in een metputti versierde vaas (Crown Imperial,
Peony, and Other Flowers in a Vase Decorated with Putti),
n.d. Black chalk and watercolor on paper, 15% x 12 in.
(39.8 x 30.5 cm). Private collection

111

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

The earliest reference to Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn is
in the catalogue of the 1749 joint sale of the collections of
Johan Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort (1697-1749) and
Van Huysum. The painting sold for the exceptionally high
sum of 1,245 florins. 10 It is unclear to whom it actually
belonged, since the most expensive paintings were gener¬
ally placed at the beginning of sales, regardless of the sellers.
The success of the painting, however, suggests that it
had not remained in Van Huysuiris possession for twenty-
five years as a model for other paintings but belonged
to the collection of Pompe van Meerdervoort. The painting
would have clearly suited the taste of the wealthy collector,
who owned an elegant country house in Zwijndrecht across
the River Maas from Dordrecht. 11 A Family Portrait of Johan
Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort with His Wife, Johanna Alida,
and Their Eldest Daughter, Maria Christina , painted by Nicolaes
Verkolje (1673-1746) in 1724 (fig. 17.3) represents the
collector and his family in the park-like setting of his estate,
Huis te Meerdervoort. Wearing the latest French clothing
and coif and holding a rifle—a reference to his aristocra¬
tic stature—Pompe van Meerdervoort casually leans against
a parapet supporting a garden urn similar to that in Van
Huysum's painting.

The buyer of Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn at the 1749
sale is unknown, but by 1766 it was one of six paintings by
Van Huysum owned by the famous collector and patron
Gerrit Braamcamp (1699-1771), who had probably purchased
at least some other paintings directly from the artist. 12
The Carter painting was one of three pictures of fruits and
flowers painted on panels of identical measurements. 131
The paintings hung in the 'Targe salon” (groote saal) of
Braamcamp's home at Herengracht 462, Amsterdam. Three
steps led to the salon built in 1760 at the corner of the
garden. Decorated with wainscoting painted the same green
color used for the other large ground-floor rooms, the salon
had an English mantelpiece with marble tiles, carved mirror
frame, and ornaments, as well as stuccoed pedestals for
classical sculpture. The pleasant salon was spacious and light.
Three windows looked out on the garden, with flowers,
grass lawns, and sculptures. 14

It may have been between the windows looking out
to the garden that Braamcamp displayed Bouquet of Flowers
in an Urn and the other still life with a park background.

In 1712 Gerard de Lairesse had stressed the importance of
hanging paintings so that still lifes agreed with the lighting
within the room and landscapes appeared like naturalistic
views through a window. 15 Although Van Huysum had
not yet introduced the garden background to his flower still
lifes when De Lairesse wrote his influential book, one can
imagine that the same principles would have applied to the
placement of Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn —that the paint¬
ing would appear to be a natural view through the window
to the actual garden.

The three Van Huysum still lifes in Braamcamp's
collection were famous. At Braamcamp's sale in 1771, Bouquet
of Flowers in an Urn (lot 90) sold for the remarkable price of
3,800 florins. The buyer was Jan Gildemeester Jansz. (1744-
1799 )? a wealthy Dutch merchant and collector. Gildemeester,
who had begun to collect at an early age, assembled an
important art collection that he displayed after 1792 in his
elegant home at Herengracht 475, Amsterdam. A painting
by Adriaan de Lelie (1755-1820) dated 1794-95, in the
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-4100), records the
appearance of Gildemeester's art gallery, which was popular
among contemporary collectors and art lovers. Sold in 1800,
following Gildemeestefs death the previous year, the
painting continued to pass through the most illustrious
collections in the Netherlands, including that of Pieter
Smeth van Alphen (1753-1809) and Lucretia Johanna van
Winter (1785-1845). Through her marriage to Hendrick Six
van Hillegom (1790-1847) in 1822, the painting entered
the famous Six collection, from which it was sold at auction
in 1928. 16 In 1941 the Nazis confiscated Bouquet of Flowers in
an Urn from Arthur Hartog, a wealthy Dutch businessman
of Jewish descent who had been taken prisoner by the
Japanese on 7 December while on a business trip to Indonesia.
The painting was destined for the Fiihrer Museum, which
was to be built in Linz, Hitler's birthplace. Restituted to
the Netherlands in 1946, it was returned in 1948 to Hartog
in London. 17

112

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

Fig-17-3

Fig. 17.3 Nicolaes Verkolje (1673-1746), A Family
Portrait ofjohan Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort
with His Wife, Johanna Alida, and Their Eldest Daughter,
Maria Christina, 1724. Oil on panel, 30% x 24 in.
(77.9 x 60.9 cm). Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht,
donated by the Volunteers of the Dordrechts
Museum 2007 (inv. no. DM/007/883)

113

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR17.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR17.2 Tiny horizontal and vertical hatches
were used as guides for the construction lines.
Hatches, marked in blue, appear darker in IRR.

The panel is a single board of mahogany
about Va inch thick and cradled. There
are no bevels. Slight waves on the
surface were probably caused by the
cradle. The surface of the painting
shows the texture of the wood, although
the painting has a thick, cream-colored
ground. It could not be determined
at this time if there was more than one
ground or an imprimatura. X-ray fluo¬
rescence spectrometry (XRF) suggests
that ochers and lead-tin yellow in addi¬
tion to whites were used in the ground.

The ground of the painting is so highly
reflective with infrared reflectography
(IRR), 1 and the pigments used for the
flowers so transparent, that it was
difficult to obtain sufficient contrast to
see the underdrawing. The i6oonm
interference bandpass filter, however,

helped to detect it. Two techniques
seem to have been used to execute the
underdrawing: (1) a sharp implement
such as graphite pencil or metalpoint; 2
and (2) a brush with a dilute liquid
medium containing carbon-black
pigments (fig. TR17.1).

Van Huysum used pencil or metalpoint
for the construction or placement
lines of the bouquet, urn, and ledge. 3
He also used this technique in parts of
the bouquet itself, for instance in the
face of the putto on the right side of
the urn. Some of the lines used to define
the edges of the ledge have tiny dark
“hatches,” where he first indicated the
line was to go; he then used a straight¬
edge to connect these hatches (fig.
TR17.2). One of the horizontal lines
skips where the straightedge slipped
while the artist was drawing the
line. The line continues, slightly higher
or lower.

Extensive underdrawing done with
a brush and a dilute liquid containing
carbon-black pigment was found
beneath and throughout the brightly
colored flowers. IRR revealed that many
of the flowers have been changed,
shifted, even abandoned between the
underdrawing and the final painted
stage. These earlier flowers, with thick,
almost crudely brushed outlines, have
sharper, more refined, and often
different flowers painted over them.

Van Huysum may have relied on a
drawing or composed directly on the
panel; what is clear is that he used the
brushed underdrawing as a loose guide,
modifying it as he developed the
painting on top. He is known to have

114

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

Fig. TR17.3 Digital micrograph (50X magnification)
of petals of auriculas in shadow, showing layers of
glazes and descriptive brushwork

Fig. TR17.4 Digital micrograph (50X magnification)
of petal of auricula in shadow, showing the scoring

executed monochromatic sketches on
paper, and it seems likely that the
underdrawing found in this painting
may relate to these. It is not known
what the medium for this underdraw¬
ing is; it may be water-based, such as ink
or watercolor, or it could be a diluted
oil paint.

The IRR clearly showed that Van
Huysum left areas of reserve for the
flowers. 4 These reserves appear through¬
out the composition where the green
background 5 has been pulled in around
the flowers in the underdrawing.
Because many of the paints the artist
used for the flowers are fairly transpar¬
ent in IRR (for example, lead white,
red and yellow lakes, and Prussian
blue 6 ), the bright white of the calcium-
carbonate ground shows through,
making halos out of the flower-blossom
reserves. Some flowers, particularly
the tiny ones at the outer edge of the

bouquet, have no areas of reserve,
indicating that they were painted later—
directly over the background.

Several layers of paint impart the per¬
ception of the color and texture of the
image. Paints range from pasty and
impastoed to thin scumbles and glazes
applied wet-into-wet and wet-over-dry.
Van Huysum painted the bouquet, the
urn, and ledge directly on the ground.
He painted the green layer for the
background around the basic design of
the flowers and urn, which he already
may have begun to paint. As he built up
the background with opaque and thin,
transparent colors, he adjusted it
around the flowers and over the green
background to obtain the shapes he
desired. The morning glory at lower
center was painted over the set paint of

the urn, and the spray of blue auriculas
on the marble ledge was partially
painted over a reserve, but part of it was
painted over the marble ledge.

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF)
found that the green background paints
contain ochers, probably green earth,
lead white, but no pigments containing
copper. The blue auricula blossoms on
the ledge have a foundation layer of
light blue paint, colored by ultramarine
blue that the artist worked up with
deep blue glazes and thin glazes of red
lake and of a deeper blue (possibly
indigo) (fig. TR17.3). The shadow below
the blue auricula blossoms on the table
is scored with fine parallel lines in two
directions. The thin, translucent gray
paint applied over the area, which is
darker in the grooves and lighter and
thinner over the flat interstices between
them, enlivens the shadows (fig.

TR17.4). The same technique is found in
a number of areas of the painting.

115

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

TR17.5 Detail of the “Van Huysum rose” showing
the red underlayer and the light yellow upper layer
containing Naples yellow

The little, stippled red-and-white
auriculas in the center of the painting
were laid in directly on the ground
with almost pure lead-white paint, with
tiny dashes and dots added along the
edges. The latter sit well above the
surface; the white must have been very
viscous to have spread so little when
applied. A translucent blue paint was
used for the cool shadows.

The “Van Huysum rose” was laid in
with a light red layer, containing the
pigments vermilion-cinnabar and lead
white. The artist then applied paint
containing Naples yellow, a new pigment
at the time (fig. TR17.5). The upper
paint layers of the rose have suffered
from flaking; this deterioration may be
due to the saponification of lead and
the lack of adhesion between the red
underlayer and the layers above it.

To paint the large, frilly, white peony,
the artist began with thin washes of
various colors brushed on the ground;
he then developed the forms with thick
white-, cream-, and yellow-colored
paints, adjusting the petals over
surrounding flowers (fig. TR17.6). XRF
identified the pigments Naples yellow
and vermilion at the center of the
flower. The salmon-colored peony
behind the striped tulip appears to have
a thin application of white paint that
was glazed with a violet-red lake.

The small leaves hanging over the ledge
at the lower center were laid in first
with a blue paint layer applied directly
on the ground. The dark blue leaf hang¬
ing straight down consists of a blue
paint layer containing the pigments
Prussian blue, ochers, green earth, lead
white, and some azurite. The leaf must
have been originally green; it is likely
that a light-sensitive yellow has faded or
copper resinate has been abraded. The

brighter green leaves contain the
pigments lead white, green earth (or
ocher), and Naples yellow. The yel¬
low-brown of some leaves contains the
green pigment copper resinate, which
has discolored, and lead white, ochers,
and green earth.

The X-radiograph does not show any
major changes. The central flowers are
clearly identifiable in the X-radiograph,
but the perimeter of the painting
appears blurry. The signature and date,
which are in good condition, were
painted with dark, translucent red-
brown paint. A thin line of red-brown

116

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

TR17.6 Detail of the white peony showing the thick
white-, cream-, and yellow-colored paints

paint of a lighter shade was applied over
the darker paint. The letters and
numbers were outlined on the right
side with light red-brown paint.

The painting is in very good condition,
although there is minor abrasion,
probably from past cleaning. The only
flaking is in the “Van Huysum rose” at
right, which has some restoration. The
varnish has a soft, even appearance.

The painting was cleaned in 1974 at
LACMA to remove a very glossy varnish.
Minor restorations were also removed,
and an acrylic varnish was applied.

NOTES

1 The high IR reflectivity of the grounds indicates
the presence of calcium carbonate.

2 The lines are fine and sharp and differ only
slightly in width along their lengths—they also
differ slightly from each other in terms of
darkness. All of this suggests the use of a pencil or
metalpoint with a variety of pressure accounting
for the slight differences in darkness and width.

A pen would give a more solidly dark line and an
even line width, and black chalk or charcoal
would give a more broken-up line, uneven in
width.

3 Similar construction lines are also found in the
infrared reflectogram of Van Huysum’s Vase with
Flowers in the collection of The J. Paul Getty
Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 82.PB.70. Dik and
Wallert 1998, pp. 391-94.

4 Van Huysum was known to begin by painting his
backgrounds in first; in one letter he describes
how his painting was almost finished, but some
fruits and flowers still needed to be painted. Dik
and Wallert 1998, pp. 391-94.

5 Carbon-black pigment in the green background
paint appears dark in the IRR.

6 Prussian blue is somewhat absorbing in regular
IRbut transparent in the higher range used with
IRR. The i6oonm bandpass filter was used in the
capturing of this IR reflectogram.

117

Van Huysum, Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

Willem Kalf

(1619-1693)

Provenance

Exhibition

References

still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses , ca. 1643 M.2009.106.22

Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in.

(55.6x44.1 cm)

118

A silver-gilt ewer stands sentinel over a still life of
luxury objects carefully arranged on a stone table
partially covered with a dark green cloth. Light
cast from the upper left skims across the top of the table,
casting long shadows while selectively illuminating and
defining the different textures and materials of objects set
on it. Caught in the light, the brilliantly colored sliced
orange, single drop of juice, and the rim and elaborate stem
of the wineglass stand out against the dark background,
which over time has absorbed many of the painting's
details. The irregular surface of the Mannerist ewer sparkles
in the light and serves as a foil for the smooth porcelain of
the overturned blue-and-white Chinese bottle. Bathed
in light, the porcelain vessel is reflected on the pewter plate
on which it and a closed watch rest. In the shadowy back¬
ground to the left, the facets on the stem of an overturned
glass flute and on a covered cut-glass bowl glisten in
the light. Behind the ewer, olives glisten in the half light.

Willem Kalf convincingly suggests that the still life
modeled in light and shadow exists within the viewer's
space by depicting the handle of the knife and the pewter
plate as if they project over the edge of the table. A ribbon
attached to the watch drapes over the edge of the plate;
caught by the light, it animates the dark green, almost black,
cloth and contributes to the perception of depth within
the picture.

Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses
is one of the first compositions in which Kalf painted a still
life of a restricted number of luxury objects viewed from
slightly below and selectively lit so that they appear to
emerge from the surrounding darkness. His early production,
which continued into the mid-i64os, had consisted almost
exclusively of small-scale still lifes set within dark, cluttered
barn interiors, often with one or two figures (Detroit
Institute of Arts, inv. no. 69.358). Kalf's interest in light and
reflections is already evident on the surfaces of the large
copper basins and stalks of straw within the dark, textured
interior of the barn. Nevertheless, the change in aesthetic
as well as subject from these barn interiors to his still lifes of
expensive objects ( pronk ) is striking.

Compositionally, the Carter painting closely resem¬
bles Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug, a Wan-Li Porcelain Plate with
Candied Fruit, and a Pewter Plate with a Peeled Lemon (fig. 18.1), 1
in which a large silver-gilt ewer dominates the triangular
composition of costly objects set on the corner of a table.
Significantly, both paintings include the unusual knife with
a handle in the form of a horse's hoof, similar to that found
on a silver spoon made in Amsterdam in 1650 (fig. 18.2). 2
The distinctive motif, which appears on the handle of a uten¬
sil (probably a spoon) resting in the chased silver bowl in the
left background of Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug, is found in
only one other painting by Kalf, 3 suggesting that these three
paintings were completed about the same time.

The composition and individual details of LACMA's
painting and Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug indicate Kalf's
knowledge of still lifes painted by Jan Davidsz. de Heem
(1606-1684) during the 1630s. 4 Like Kalf, De Heem composed
his early still lifes with a limited number of objects seen
from a low vantage point so that they appear to overlap in
a compellingly three-dimensional arrangement. The
composition of the Carter painting is particularly close to
a still life by De Heem (fig. 18.3) 5 that features a triangular
composition dominated by a tall pewter ewer. In Kalf's
painting, the ornate, chased silver-gilt ewer occupies the
place of De Heem's smooth pewter vessel, and the blue
ribbon of the watch has replaced De Heem's cascading lemon
peel. 6 Likewise, Kalf's overturned Chinese porcelain wine
bottle assumes the position of the silver cup viewed from
the bottom in De Heem's painting. Kalf repeats the circular
form of the bottle's dark base in the geometric shapes of
the closed watch, the wineglasses, and the orange.

Despite their similarities, the isolated simplicity of the
Carter still life, in which only the glass of wine and half
orange indicate someone has been present, differs from Still
Life with a Silver-gilt Jug in which Kalf emphasizes the human
presence by including the Chinese porcelain bowl with
candied fruit, the broken pastry, and the crumpled cloth
as well as the wine and spiraling lemon peel. The Carter
painting, furthermore, replaces the golden tones and sharp
rendering of Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug with a dark tonality
and sfumato modeling of the objects that anticipate Kalf's
later paintings. The compositional format and dark palette,
as well as specific details, like the covered cut-glass bowl,
plate of olives, and stone table, are particularly close to
Kalf's earliest dated pronk still life painted in Paris, Still Life
with Nautilus Shell, Plate of Olives, Tin Pilgrim Flask, and
Glasses, dated 1643 (Musee de Tesse, Le Mans, France, inv.
no. LM io.89). h

The tall ewer that is similar to those in other paintings
attributed to Kalf 8 was probably based on an actual object
Kalf owned or to which he had direct access, rather than on
a two-dimensional image, such as the black-and-white
engraving by Cherubino Alberti (1553-1615) after Polidoro
da Caravaggio (ca. 1499-ca. 1543) that served as Kalf's model
for the elaborate gilt-silver ewer in Still Life with a Silver-gilt
Jug . 9 The ewer in the Carter painting is similar to egg-shaped
ewers that were produced in France and Germany during
the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It is
unknown if Kalf modeled his ewer on a chased gilt-silver
vessel or on a pewter example, like those produced by
Francois Briot (ca. 1550-ca. 1612) and others. 10 Inspired by
antique vessels, the Mannerist ewers are divided into three
horizontal zones and decorated with reliefs representing
allegorical figures. Like the vessel in the present work,
a face or mask appears on the neck under the lip, and a herm
stretches along the high-arching handle of the ewer.

119

Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses

Kalfs interest in pronk still lifes has traditionally
been connected with his arrival in Paris, where he came into
contact with the work of Flemish and French still-life paint¬
ers. The move was presumed to have occurred after 1638,
the year he signed his earliest dated painting, a rustic kitchen
still life (private collection. New York) that is closely related
to contemporary interests in Rotterdam. 11 However, newly
discovered documents indicate that between 1637 and 1639
Kalf was in The Hague, where both his older brother Gerrit
and his sister and their families were living. By 13 November
1640, a document in The Hague notes that by then Kalf
was “abroad” (uijtlandich). 12 It is unknown where he was
between the time of his departure from The Hague, proba¬
bly in 1639, and his arrival in 1642 in Paris, where his
presence is documented by the depiction of the towers of
Notre Dame in the background of the painting Peasants
Outside at a Well (private collection), dated in that year. 13
Although undocumented, it is possible that Kalf spent time
in Flanders, possibly Antwerp, on his way to Paris. 14 His
contact with the city is suggested by the influence of De Heem,
who had relocated to Antwerp by 1635, and the introduction
of elaborate gilded objects, which often appear in contem¬
porary Flemish paintings such as those by Adriaen van
Utrecht (1599-1652). It is further suggested by the discovery
that Kalf painted his early barn interiors on panels produced
in Antwerp.

In 1988 Sam Segal reported that he had detected the
remnants of a signature and date, W. Kalf 163-, on the Carter
painting, which he dated 1639 and considered Kalfs earliest
Paris still life. 15 Subsequent examinations of the painting
have not, however, corroborated SegaFs discovery of a date
or signature. 16 Nevertheless, the painting, which includes
references to the Netherlands and Paris, may, in fact, be
the first pronk still life Kalf painted in Paris, but dated closer
to 1642-43 than 1639. The differences in tonality and the
inclusion of objects found only in later paintings suggest
that the Carter still life dates after Still Life with a Silver-
gilt Jug, which is considered to have been painted before
Kalfs arrival in Paris because of its references to De Heem
and inclusion of objects not commonly found in Paris. 17

Writing in 1712, Gerard de Lairesse admired Kalfs style
but lamented that he did not attach meaning that would
elevate his paintings: “[Kalf] could give us little Reason for
what he did as others before or after him: He only depicted
what occurred to him, a Porcelain Pot or Dish... without

any thought of doing something of Importance which might
bear some particular Meaning or be applicable to some¬
thing.” 18 Although De Lairesse, a history painter, was probably
expressing the contemporary low regard for still life
in deference to history painting rather than any specific
opinion about Kalfs iconographic intentions, it is debatable
whether Kalf and his contemporaries viewed his luxurious
still lifes caressed by sensual light as carrying moral meaning.

In the previous catalogue of the Carter collection, the
authors associated the painting with Temperance, one of
the cardinal virtues. The depiction of Temperantia on the
silver-gilt ewer, the inverted wineglass in the background,
and the pocket watch can be allusions to Temperance.

A reference to Temperance or vanitas has also been applied
to the painting in Rouen (see n. 8) in which the same ewer
is overturned, and an open watch—a traditional reference
to the passage of time associated with vanitas —rests on
a pewter plate. In the Rouen painting, however, the detail of
the medallion with the figure of Temperance is not empha¬
sized, so even there it remains a vague allusion.

Rather than focus on a moral lesson, Kalfs sumptuous
still lifes, which seduce the viewer with the brilliant colors
emerging from the shadows—the translucent quality of the
flesh of an orange, the soft skin of a peach, and the cool
glisten of silver—may have been primarily appreciated as
celebrations of the luxury that accompanies prosperity.

For Kalf, his paintings were tours de force, demonstrating
his high level of skill in representing the different textures
and surfaces of objects. His contemporaries would have
admired the selection of objects depicted in the Carter still
life. The blue-and-white porcelain wine bottle decorated
with narrative scenes around the bowl and tulip motifs
at the neck is characteristic of transitional ware produced in
China between 1620 and 1680. Known as a globular bottle,
it was made according to specifications provided by
the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische
Compagnie, VOC) for export to the Netherlands. 19 The wine¬
glasses fashioned locally a la fagon de Venise were a reference
to the finer originals imported from Venice. Like the
precious objects they depict, Kalf's sumptuous paintings
were undoubtedly valued by collectors primarily for their
refinement and technical skill—reflections of the owner's
wealth and status.

120

Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses

Fig. 18.1 Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug,
a Wan-Li Porcelain Plate with Candied Fruit, and a Pewter
Plate with a Peeled Lemon, n.d. Oil on canvas,

3014 x 23% in. (77 x 60 cm). Private collection

Fig. 18.2 Spoon with Pear-Shaped Bowl and Stem
Crowned with Horseshoe, 1650. Silver, 7 x 214 in.
(17.8 x 5.3 cm). Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no.
BK-NM-10932)

Fig. 18.3 Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1684), Silver
and Pewter Vessels with Grapes, a Lemon, and Oysters
on a Draped Table, 1633. Oil on panel, 2514 x 21% in.
(64 x 55 cm). Private collection

Fig. 18.3

121

Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR18.1 X-radiograph marked at old foldover
edges to show extended tacking margins. Note that
the edges of the extended painting have been
cropped.

Fig. TR18.2 Infrared reflectogram

The original support is a plain-weave,
medium-weight coarse fabric; it is lined
with what appears to be a wax-resin
adhesive applied to a stiff, plain-weave,
fiberglass fabric that is backed with
canvas that is probably not adhered.

The painting is tacked to a heavy expan¬
sion bolt stretcher.

The tacking edges of the original sup¬
port have been flattened and painted
to extend the picture on each side:
the left and right sides and the top each
were extended by Vz inch, and the bot¬
tom by about 3 A inch. The X-radiograph
exposes lines of paint loss along the
inside edges of the extensions and tack
holes within the extensions, indicating
that the painting was once attached to
a smaller stretcher. The original ground
continues over the extensions, but there
is no original painted imagery. The
texture of the extensions is noticeably
different from the rest of the painting.
The sides of the original canvas have
strong scalloping (fig. TR18.1).

The support has a double ground:
a thick, bright red layer directly on the
canvas and a thinner, light gray layer
that contains carbon black on top. The
infrared reflectogram (IRR) showed
later overpaint on all sides of the paint¬
ing, due to its expanded size. This
overpaint shows up as black in IRR due
to its carbon-black content (fig. TR18.2).
While no obvious underdrawing was
found in IRR, several of the objects do
have faint, thin outlines, but these all
appear to be on the paint surface rather
than below the paint. It is possible,
however, that underdrawing exists, for
the still-life objects may have been
outlined with a material that is either
transparent in infrared or does not
provide enough contrast with the
double ground in this painting to be
visible. 1 It is also possible that under¬
drawing is being blocked by the high
proportion of carbon black in the upper
paint layers.

The artist laid in the design and
shadows with thin, dark brown paint.
Paints range from thick, opaque,
and pasty to thin and transparent. The
background paint, a semi-opaque
brown color containing lead white,
ochers, and probably carbon-black

pigments, allows the gray ground layer
beneath to show through. The back¬
ground color was applied around the
objects, but the glass vessels were
painted over it.

The ewer was laid in with a transparent,
dark brown paint for the shadows and
a translucent, warm color for the lighter
areas. The quick, thick dabs of paint
that give the ewer its texture and visual
impact contain the pigments lead-tin
yellow, vermilion-cinnabar, earth colors,
and lead white in various mixtures
(fig. TR18.3). The gray ground shows
through the thinly painted areas and
dabs of paint to help create the tone
and modeling of the object. The shad¬
owed areas were painted with thicker
applications of medium-rich, dark paint
and glazes that may contain copper-
resinate pigment that has discolored.
The thick dabs of paint in the shaded
areas were glazed with a dark color.

The form of the porcelain vase was
painted with paints that contain gray
and blue smalt, and lead-white
pigments; the paint appears somewhat
murky. The design was then painted

122

Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses

Fig. TR18.3 Digital micrograph (5X magnification)
of the neck of the ewer showing thick, opaque daubs
of paint on the gray underlayer, probably the
ground

Fig. TR18.4 Digital micrograph (5X magnification)
of pocket watch showing the violet color of the
underpaint

with dark gray-green paint that contains
smalt. High magnification revealed
crystal-like patterns in the paint of the
design, which may be the result of an
interaction of alkali metal ions from the
deteriorating smalt pigment and the oil
medium.

The gold watch and the pewter plates
were painted over the dark gray back¬
ground with a semitransparent layer of
light-violet-colored paint, which
appears bright magenta under magnifi¬
cation (fig. TR18.4). The artist laid in the
orange fruit with a bright reddish-
orange paint containing the pigments
vermilion-cinnabar and ochers. He then
glazed this layer with darker translu¬
cent colors to give form and added some
dabs of yellow paint to vary the color
and texture.

On the extreme right side, the edge of
the pewter bowl has been overpainted—
probably to complete the image when
the composition was enlarged. It was
not possible to see from the IRR if Kalf
originally painted the bowl truncated
and it was only later extended with
overpaint when the painting was made

larger, or if he painted the full bowl
and its edge was overpainted to hide
damages.

The gray table was painted with dark to
lighter streaks of gray paint. The dark
cloth over the table was painted with
a medium-tone green paint layer that
was covered with a dark green glaze.

The pigments for the cloth are mostly
copper based, which could include
copper resinate, azurite, and/or verdigris.
Since the area is very dark and difficult
to read today, the medium-tone green
paint layer may have been glazed with
copper resinate that has discolored to
dark brown.

Reportedly, there were remains of
a signature at lower center, but nothing
of a signature was found with this
examination.

The painting is in rather good condition.
A crackle pattern of medium size
runs throughout the paint and ground
layers, but it is more visible in the
lighter colors. The strong lining must
have flattened the cracks so that they
are now only slightly lifted. Some cracks
have been toned. Bands of abrasion
exist along the upper and lower edges
of the painting.

A number of areas of restoration show
in ultraviolet light: thin retouching
is evident around the objects on the left
side of the painting, and there may be
a little toning of the decoration on the
ewer. Retouching to the left and above
the orange follows a circular form;
perhaps the retouching disguises an
earlier placement of the orange that had
become more visible over time. Some
darker paints may have been lightly
toned to cover abrasion.

An earlier varnish, probably a natural
resin, fluoresces strongly yellow-green
in ultraviolet light. The varnish was
mostly removed in the lower right of
the painting, but in the background
and lower left, much of the earlier
varnish remains. Some fluorescence
may also be from the toning of abrasions
with a paint that contains resin. The
top varnish is an acrylic applied when
the painting was treated, probably in
the 1980s, at LACMA.

NOTES

1 If underdrawing was done with a material that
appears similar to the ground in IRR, then it
would be difficult to see. Therefore, a white or red
chalk underdrawing would be very difficult to
distinguish from the upper gray ground in IRR.

123

Kalf, Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses

Philips Koninck

(1619-1688)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Panoramic Landscape with a Village , Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

ca. 1648-49 M.2009.106.9

Oil on wood, \\Vz x 14% in.

(28.6x36.5 cm)

124

V iewed from a low hill, the broad plains of Gelderland
stretch to the distant horizon beneath a blanket
of dark clouds. Alternating areas of light and shadow
provide compositional structure and lead the eye into the
distance. A dark shadow stretches across the foreground,
where a rutted road circles around thatched houses on the
left. Emerging from the shadow, it cuts diagonally across
the sunlit meadow and then reverses itself in the direction
of a distant village barely discernible in the shadows cast
by the passing clouds. A line of trees planted along the canal
after it makes a sharp turn hides the continuing path of the
road into the distance. The reflection on the water of the
sunlight breaking through the clouds forms an important
compositional element balanced by the dark row of trees
on the right.

Panoramic Landscape with a Village is closely related to
Philips Koninck's Wide River Landscape ( The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 63.43.2), a slightly larger
painting on canvas. 1 In both paintings, sunlight breaks
through the clouds and illuminates the glassy surface of
a river. Another patch of sunlight draws the eye to a distant
town and beyond that to an open plain or a large body
of water. In the far distance the land rises slightly. The two
paintings are among the earliest landscapes by Koninck,
painted about 1648-49, a period when the artist, who had
been living in Amsterdam by April 1642, was strongly
influenced by the landscapes of Rembrandt Harmensz. van
Rijn (1606-1669) as well as by the atmospheric panoramas
of Hercules Seghers (1589/90-before 1638). Painted broadly
in shades of golden yellow, brown, and black, unified
by the reddish-brown tone of the panel, Konincks moody
Panoramic Landscape with a Village recalls Rembrandt's
landscapes of the late 1630s and early 1640s. Indeed, in the
nineteenth century the Carter painting was considered
a work by Rembrandt.

In this early landscape, Koninck's effort to connect
the foreground with the distant panorama is more success¬
ful than in many of his later, larger paintings, such as
A Panoramic Landscape from 1665 (The J. Paul Getty Museum,

Los Angeles, inv. no. 85.PA.32), in which there is an unbridge¬
able break between the two. 2 In the Carter painting, the
foreground is compressed, “and the viewer has a slower,
more complex imaginary passage through the landscape.
The tight bend in the road... makes the space beyond
appear more accessible and less vast, thereby adding an
unusual note of intimacy to a panoramic landscape.” 3 The
naturalism of these small landscapes on panel recalls
Koninck's early panoramic drawings of known sites, inclu¬
ding Edam, El ten, and the Rhine Valley near Emmerich
viewed from Spitzberg, which, even if not specifically
portrayed in his paintings, informed his vision. 4 His com¬
positional interest in the sharp angles made by the water
and reinforced by lines of trees is also found in his contem¬
porary drawings of a flat river landscape viewed across
cornfields (fig. 19.1). 5

Koninck's paintings suggest that he was a keen
observer of the weather and the way it affects the lighting
and mood of the landscape. In the Carter painting, muted
earth tones suggest that the ground is moist with rain
from the low, dark storm clouds. The weather was, in fact,
a growing scientific study in the seventeenth century. Even
before the invention of the air barometer in about 1643,
which made it possible to measure changes in air pressure,
scientists and amateurs made accurate records of meteoro¬
logical conditions. 6 In a diary kept in 1624, David Beck,
a teacher in The Hague, begins each daily entry with a brief
account of the weather before progressing to the activities
of the day; on 30 June 1624, for example, he notes, “Morning
gray, dark and rainy weather without sunshine, but after¬
noon bright with sunshine, yet throughout the whole day
strong wind and storm from the northwest.” 7 Later in the
day. Beck reported that he walked out of the city toward the
fishing village of Scheveningen and stood on a high, dry
dune to watch the weather. 8 Some of his friends had earlier
gone to observe the stormy sea at Scheveningen, a scene
captured by Jacob van Ruisdael in View from the Dunes to the
Sea from the 1650s (Kunsthaus Zurich, inv. no. R31). 9

125

Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village

The numerous panoramic landscapes painted by
Koninck and other Dutch artists beginning in the 1640s,
which were based on actual observation rather than their
imaginations, apparently responded to contemporary
interest. Accustomed to a flat landscape largely reclaimed
from the sea, the Dutch appreciated opportunities to
view the broad landscape from a dune or other elevated
position (see cat. nos. 3,12). 10 Seventeenth-century guide¬
books recommend that when travelers arrived at a new
place, they should first view the city from a church tower or
the ramparts. 11 Beck frequently mentions climbing the
church tower to show his visitors the view of the city and
the land beyond. On 8 August 1624, for example, he reports
that he had gone with a group of friends up the church
tower in The Hague, where they lay for a good hour under
the clock and looked out through a telescope (verreziender)M
The telescope, the first working example of which
appeared in 1608, undoubtedly stimulated the interest in
panoramic landscapes by providing a magnified view of the

distance. A print by Adriaen Pietersz. van de Venne (1589-
1662) published by Johan de Brune (1588-1658) in Emblemata
of zinne-werck (Amsterdam, 1624) shows a well-dressed
gentleman using a telescope near a country estate (Getty
Research Institute, Los Angeles, call number 2823-093). 13
Viewing the landscape was a popular interest among people
of all stations. To compensate for the naturally flat Dutch
landscape, the statesman and scholar Constantijn Huygens
(1596-1687), at his country estate Hofwijck, and Prince
Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen (1604-1679), at his house in
The Hague (the Mauritshuis), built artificial hills in their
gardens from which they could view the surrounding
landscape. 14 After his appointment in 1647 as stadholder at
Cleves on the Dutch-German border, Maurits created
a series of artificial viewing mountains, each with objects
from nature and works of art. 15 The carefully selected and
constructed viewing points provided the stadholder
and his guests with impressive vistas of his property and the
surrounding countryside.

126

Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village

Fig. 19.1

Fig. 19.1 Philips Koninck, Panorama ofRiver Landscape,
1688. Brown and black ink with watercolor on paper,
5-7 x 7% in. (14.5 x 20 cm). Teylers Museum, Haarlem,
The Netherlands (inv. no. P+028)

127

Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR19.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR19.2 Detail of underdrawn house visible
only in IRR above and to the right of the boat

The panel is about % inch thick and
beveled. Wood strips have been added
to the top and bottom with adhesives,
making its present height 11 Vz inches.
The panel has a thick, light-colored
ground with a second thin pink ground
on top. The X-radiograph shows broad
and brushy horizontal strokes that
may have to do with the application of
the ground, but it did not indicate any
changes to the composition.

The infrared reflectogram (IRR) showed
that the ground is reflective and bright
white, an indication of the presence
of calcium carbonate. When the contrast
of the IRR was increased, dark lines were
found throughout the composition

(fig. TR19.1). Many of the lines visible
in the IRR were also visible in normal
light, so it is unclear if these actually
represent underdrawing. However,
several of the lines were covered by paint
and therefore appeared only in IRR.

The center of the scene revealed the out¬
line of a building that was not painted,
and this, possibly a house (fig. TR19.2),
along with other horizontal lines in the
landscape are similar in character. They
are dark and uneven in width, having
a dry, broken appearance that suggests
they may be charcoal or black-chalk
underdrawing.

The painting seems rather quickly
executed. The design and shadows were
laid in first with translucent, dark brown
paint. The landscape, sky, and pink-
roofed buildings in the center near the

canal were then set in with local colors.
The trees and boat were painted over
the landscape. Strong light is necessary
to view the details created with thick
dark paint in the shaded foreground
(fig. TR19.3). The upper part of the sky
contains primarily smalt, but ultrama¬
rine may also be present. Blue azurite
was predominantly used near the hori¬
zon. The wooded areas of the landscape
have a first paint layer containing
azurite, which may have been glazed
with copper resinate.

The surface coating fluoresces strongly
in ultraviolet light, revealing some
restoration scattered over the painting
but mostly on the right side of the

128

Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village

Fig. TR19.3 Detail of the lower left corner in good
light showing the buildings and trees

sky, which appears to have been abraded.
IRR revealed dark amorphous areas in
the sky that may have been overpainted.

Two parallel, horizontal cracks appear
above the horizon line on the right
side, and there is some old insect damage
in the wood panel. The lower crack
extends about 4 to 6 inches into the pic¬
ture, and the upper one, at mid-sky,
extends to the other side. In 1988 the
split on the right side was repaired, and
the varnish was saturated with a natural
resin varnish.

129

Koninck, Panoramic Landscape with a Village

Aert van der Neer

(1603/4-1677)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Frozen River with a Footbridge,

ca. 1645-55

Oil on wood, 15 x 19% in. (38.1 x 49.2 cm)

Signed lower right: AVDN

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.1

130

B eneath a cold winter sky streaked with yellow and
pink, a frozen river landscape stretches far into
the distance, where the land seems to dissolve into
the sky. The frozen river, the line of its shores softened by
marsh grasses trapped by the winter ice, meanders back and
forth in a zigzag pattern from the clump of denuded trees
in the left foreground to the large windmill near the horizon.
Winding under a footbridge, past the snow-covered thatched
roofs and church tower of a village, the river eventually
disappears beyond a masonry bridge in the center distance;
farther right, a large windmill, a church, and houses are
shrouded by mist.

In the foreground, a woman and a boy walk down
a rise huddled against the cold and wind that blows her red
skirt. Their postures accentuate the impression of a cold
winter day, when the waterways froze and became avenues
of travel and stages for winter sports. Beyond them a man
skates with a stick over his shoulder while a woman pulls
a child on a sled in the opposite direction. On the far shore
of the river a horse-drawn sledge ( bakslee ) transports passen¬
gers. In contrast to the figures in Winter Scene onaFrozen
Canal (cat. no. 1) by Hendrick Avercamp who celebrate the
frozen canal with a variety of sports, here the only actual
recreational activity is enjoyed by two men who play a game
of coif. A mainstay of winter scenes that could be played on
land or ice, coif was a popular predecessor to modern golf.

Infrared reflectography (IRR) of Frozen River with
a Footbridge reveals pentimenti and evidence of underdraw¬
ing of the buildings, landscape, and figures (see Technical
Report): a man pushing a sled in the center foreground,
another man standing on the ice to the right of the child's
sled, and two other figures on the ice behind the woman
and boy in the immediate foreground. The numerous penti¬
menti found here and in many of Van der Neer's paintings
reveal his efforts to position his figures in the landscape
to complement and accent the composition. The scale of the
figures in the final version of Frozen River with a Footbridge
is significantly smaller than that of the figures revealed by
IRR, suggesting that he thought the original figures over¬
powered the landscape.

The repoussoir of tall, thin trees on the left and the
limited number and smaller scale of the figures, which
visually places them at a greater distance from the viewer,
are typical of the group of small winter landscapes Aert
van der Neer painted during the late 1640s and early 1650s.
In these paintings (Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio, inv. no.
i 953 -i)/ as in the Carter landscape, the low horizon, complex
composition, and smaller scale of the figures emphasize
the vastness of the sky and frozen landscape, which serve as
vehicles for his true subject—light and color.

Although Van der Neer introduced dramatic lighting
in many of his paintings from this group, such as Sports on
a Frozen River (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
inv. no. 32.100.11), in which the setting sun casts a strong
beam of light across the ice through the center of the com¬
position and reflections throughout the landscape, the
effect of light in the Carter painting is subtle: the winter sun
is low in the sky, but it is not yet setting. Hidden behind
the buildings on the left, where the reflection of indirect
sunlight is suggested by the rosy tones, the sun illuminates
the sky, which in turn produces the reflections on the ice.
Although common to skating scenes beginning with Pieter
Bruegel the Elder (ca. 1525-1569), the reflections in Van
der Neer's paintings are more closely related to the general
luminosity of the painting. 2 Similarly, whereas his predeces¬
sors employed an even covering of snow, here and in his
other winter landscapes. Van der Neer uses white sparingly.
White paint thinly applied over the ocher imprimatura
of the panel captures the effect of ice and a dusting of snow
on the frozen ground, while daubs of bright white paint
suggest snow on the rooftops and sides of trees glistening
in the sunlight.

Van der Neer's representation of a limited number of
villagers who go about their daily activities is closer to
Esaias van de Velde (see cat. no. 31) than to Avercamp, whose
compositions are typically filled with colorful middle- and
upper-class people celebrating the freezing of the waterways.
Painted in the same brownish-black tones as the exposed
earth, trees, and dead grasses, the figures in Van der Neer's
paintings, like those of Van de Velde, appear to be a natural
part of the landscape.

131

Van der Neer, Frozen River with a Footbridge

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR20.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR20.2 Detail in IRR showing pentimenti
of larger-scale figures in background, behind the
boy and red-skirted woman

The panel is about 14 inch thick and
composed of two boards with the join
about 7 Vs inches from the top of the
painting. The join is reinforced by a strip
of fabric glued on the reverse, probably
applied after the execution of the paint¬
ing. The panel, which is a little rough
on the reverse, has shallow bevels on
all sides. It is in good condition except
for a small loss at the lower left corner.

A double ground consists of a thin pink
layer directly on the wood panel and
a gray layer on top. The pink ground and
the color and texture of the wood show
through the gray ground, giving the
painting a pinkish tonality.

Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed
extensive underdrawing as well as
numerous pentimenti. The artist drew
the design on the ground in a free,

cursory manner, possibly with charcoal
or black chalk as well as with brushes
(fig. TR20.1). The good contrast between
the calcium-carbonate ground and the
carbon-black underdrawing, in addi¬
tion to the transparency of the upper
paint layers, makes the underdrawing
clearly visible in IRR. 1 Van der Neer
changed and omitted some drawn forms
as he developed the painting; penti¬
menti visible in IRR indicate that he also
overpainted some figures that he had
already partially painted. The landscape,
buildings, and figures are all under¬
drawn with black chalk or charcoal; the
lines are characteristically powdery,
skip over the ground texture, and vary
in width.

The pentimenti indicate that Van der
Neer reduced the scale of the final
figures. Some of the original figures are
more than twice as large as the final
figures (fig. TR20.2). He abandoned all
of these larger figures, covering them
with lead-white paint over which he
painted the smaller, final figures. The

original figures are also now partially
visible to the naked eye as gray-blue
shadows due to the increased transpar¬
ency of the aged paint.

While some pentimenti are just sketchy
outlines, some figures were seemingly
completely finished before being aban¬
doned and painted out. These figures
were developed with a paint containing
carbon black in a manner that closely
resembles the technique of the final,
finished figures.

The most significant pentimento is that
of a very large figure in the foreground
pushing a sled in which there may
be a passenger. This large figure, which
was developed from the initial outlines
with a wash or paint that contains
carbon-black pigment, was later covered
up with the green-brown rushes of the

132

Van der Neer, Frozen River with a Footbridge

Fig. TR20.3 Detail in IRR showing pentimento of
larger-scale male figure pushing a sled in fore¬
ground, now covered by the rushes. Note that this
figure seems to have been developed beyond just
outlines, unlike the sled and its contents.

Fig. TR20.4 Detail of female figure in foreground,
center

riverbank (fig. TR20.3). Another penti¬
mento, that of a man bending slightly
at the shoulders, is visible to the right of
the two men on the left side of the
painting. To the right, above the boy
and woman, is another larger figure.
Farther to the right between the woman
pulling a child on a sled and the man
with the staff is a figure who may be
fishing through a hole in the ice. This
figure was also painted over by the
artist. Even the horse drawing the sled
on the far right riverbank has been
shifted in position. The IRR shows the
earlier legs and head or harness.

Paints range from opaque whites and
blues to translucent, dark, warm colors.
The paint was directly applied with
a range of brush sizes, including very
fine brushes for the grasses in the
foreground. The blue of the sky was
applied, leaving some reserves for the
denser clouds. Peach, gray, and cream
colors were applied over the paint of the
sky and clouds in varying thicknesses.
The warm colors of the landscape in the

foreground were created with thin
glazes that allow the color of the
ground to show through and affect the
overall tonality of the painting. Trees
were painted over the sky, and figures
over the landscape.

Some of the lighter colors contain lead
white and also large, coarse particles,
likely calcite, which were perhaps added
for some transparency. The dark
shadows in the picture likely contain
carbon black that is warmed with ochers
and umber. Ultramarine was used for
the brightest blue of the sky, and smalt
for the gray clouds.

The picture appears fairly detailed and
carefully worked up, but there is
actually little concern for gradations of
tones. Instead, figures are depicted
with an outline and well-placed strokes
of local color (fig. TR20.4). The same

technique was used for the large tree
trunks; brushstrokes that curve around
the trunks create volume.

The signature in yellow paint was
applied on top of dry paint. It appears
in good condition.

The X-radiograph does not show the
earlier design ideas that are visible
in IRR. However, it does reveal a few
other developments and changes. Above
the horizon, especially on the right
half of the picture, a series of rounded
forms may have had something to
do with the development of the clouds.

The painting has some abrasion from
past cleanings, and there are numerous
small areas of restoration, mainly
in the center of the sky, where the wood
grain has been toned. There is light
enhancement of some outlines, such as
tree branches.

NOTE

1 Calcium carbonate is IR-reflective and appears
bright white in IRR; carbon black is IR-absorbing
and appears dark in IRR.

133

Van der Neer, Frozen River with a Footbridge

Clara Peeters

(act. 1607-21)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

and Cherries, ca. 1615 M.2003.108.8

Oil on wood, 13 Vs x 18% in.

(33.3x46.7 cm)

Signed lower left, on edge of table: CLARA. P.

134

I n a surprisingly modern composition of simple,

powerful forms and strong saturated colors set against
a dark background, Clara Peeters presents the elements
of a simple meal: a stack of three cheeses surmounted
by a blue-and-white bowl with shaved butter, a roll, half an
artichoke, cherries, and a silver saltcellar. A single cherry pit
and slice of artichoke lie on the table next to a knife,
suggesting that someone, perhaps the viewer, has already
sampled the food.

Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries , generically
known as a breakfast piece (ontbijt), combines in a unique
way elements associated with still lifes painted in Haarlem
and Antwerp during the first decades of the seventeenth
century. The stack of cheese is a familiar motif in the paint¬
ings produced in Haarlem by Nicolaes Gillis (act. 1612-32),
Floris van Schooten (ca. 1585-1656), and Floris Claesz. van
Dijck (ca. 1575-1651) in which costly dinnerware, fruit, and
cheeses are arranged on a table laid with a damask cloth
(Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-4821). These often
large-scale compositions view the still lifes from above so
that the individual elements appear as isolated forms on
a tilted tabletop. Described with local color and cast in even
light, the objects fill the composition without focus.

The vantage point of Peeters's painting in the Carter
collection is both lower and closer than that of the paint¬
ings produced in Haarlem, bringing the viewer into direct
contact with the limited number of objects placed on
an unadorned wood table, the front edge of which all but
disappears. The intimate view is typical of still lifes painted
in Antwerp; Peeters's dense compositions and interest
in geometric forms are particularly close to works by Osias
Beert the Elder (ca. 1580-1623), such as Still Life with Artichokes,
Fruit, and Wineglasses (Musee de Grenoble, inv. no. MC434),
leading to the suggestion that she may have studied
with Beert. 1 In comparison with BeerFs paintings, the lower
vantage point of Peeters's painting produces a more cohesive
composition in which the objects overlap and cast shad¬
ows on each other, suggesting tangible space and volume.
Peeters balances the predominant colors of the butter, the
dish, artichoke, and cherries with the earth tones of the
cheese and bread. Reflected light plays an important role
in her painting: the cheese, artichoke, and cherries are
reflected in the pewter plates. Highlights on the edges of
the plates, the knife, and saltcellar emphasize their texture
and sculptural presence. Peeters's interest in defining
reflections on metallic surfaces was shared by many of her
contemporaries, especially those in Haarlem, where it
would become a characteristic of the paintings by the next
generation of still-life painters—Pieter Claesz. (see cat.
no. 8) and Willem Claesz. Heda (see cat. no. 13), as well as
in the still lifes of Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1683/84),
who moved from Leiden to Antwerp during the early 1630s.

The Carter painting is a tour de force of Peeters's
skill in representing different textures: smooth metal ves¬
sels, the crisp roll, firm cherries, the halved artichoke,
and the three cheeses. Her description of the different parts
of the cooked artichoke sliced in half is unrivaled. She skill¬
fully defines and differentiates the sharp, dry outer leaves
sof the vegetable, the silky smooth surface of the firm heart,
and the delicate, crimson, immature leaves of the choke.
Rendered with fluidly drawn individual strokes of different
colors, the inner leaves have an abstract beauty of their
own. Peeters repeated the motif of the sliced artichoke and
cherries on a pewter plate with a saltcellar in another paint¬
ing in which they are combined with a prominent dish of
langostinos, a rummer of white wine, a roll, and a crockery
jug, but no cheese (fig. 21.1) J

Peeters was the first artist to exploit the beauty of
the different textures and colors of the sliced artichoke in
her paintings, beginning with Still Life with an Artichoke,
a Stoneware Jug, a Wan-Li Dish with Butter, Cherries, and a Herring,
dated 1612 (private collection). 3 In a still life of fish dated
1611 (Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. no. P001621), Peeters
represents stems of whole artichokes in a colander, a motif
that first appears in French and Flemish still lifes in the late
sixteenth century, coincidental with the introduction of
the plant from France to the Netherlands. By at least 1605,
at which time they were locally grown, whole artichokes
frequently appear in the kitchen and larder scenes of Frans
Snyders (1579-1657) that celebrate the abundance of the
local agricultural economy. 1

Peeters was equally skilled in defining the cheeses.
Employing remarkably thin paint, she suggests the differ¬
ent degrees of moisture or dryness of the crumbly, large
wheel of cheese, the firm, dry, green wedge, and the creamy
square of soft cheese. Crumbs of cheese on the pewter plate
and grains of salt on the rim of the silver saltcellar contrib¬
ute to the tangible reality of the food and the intimacy of
the representation. Although she included similar stacks sof
cheeses in several of her paintings (Mauritshuis, The Hague,
inv. no. 1203), slight differences in the shapes and the irreg¬
ular cuts of the cheeses, as well as the shadows, suggest
that each was independently painted, though not necessar¬
ily from life.

Various attempts have been made to interpret still lifes
with stacks of cheeses. One theory is that the stack of cheeses
in the Haarlem banquet pieces represented “impious luxury,”
and that because cheese was subject to decay, it was a warn¬
ing about transience and vanity. 5 The addition of a dish of
butter shavings to the top of the stack of cheesse in Peeter s’s
paintings prompted the association with the aphorism
“zuivel op zuivel isT werk van den duivel” (dairy on dairy is
the work of the devil), warning against the extravagance
of eating cheese with butter. 6

135

Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries

Without a specific text directly associated with the
painting, it is questionable whether Peeters intended to
convey a moral warning. The observations of a seventeenth-
century English traveler to the Netherlands suggest that
on one level the Carter painting reflects the actual habits of
Peeters's contemporaries:

They have four or five sorts of cheese; three they usually
bring forth and set before you: 1. Those great round
cheeses, coloured red on the outside, commonly in
England called Holland-cheeses. 2. Cummin-seed
cheese. 3. Green cheese, said to be so coloured with the
juice of sheep's dung. This they scrape upon bread
buttered, and so eat. 4. Sometimes angelots [small size
camembert]. 5. Cheese like our common country cheese. 1

Salt, which was essential for making cheese and butter
and preserving food for long voyages, was also considered
an important part of the meal. 8 In Schat dergesontheyt (Treasury
of Good Health), originally published in 1636, the Dordrecht
physician Johan van Beverwijck (1594-1647), who warned
against eating old cheese, recommended salt to open (stimu¬
late) the stomach and cheese to close it. 9 According to a poem
by Jacob Cats (1577-1660), published in the chapter on salt
in Schat der gesontheyt, “One can do better on earth without
gold, than without salt.” 10 The value associated with salt is
reflected in the costly cylindrical silver saltcellars decorated
with delicately etched flourishes in Peeters's still lifes.

Both salt and cheese were also important commodities
for the Dutch economy. Salt brought from France, Portugal,
and Spain as well as from the West Indies was refined in
Zeeland and transported in Dutch ships throughout Europe,
especially to cities on the Baltic, which has a very low salt
content. In the seventeenth century, as now, Holland was
particularly known for the production of cheese. Its large,
healthy cattle were famous for producing milk that far
exceeded in quantity and quality that of cows elsewhere in
Europe. 11 A seventeenth-century observer marveled that
at Amsterdam's weekly market there was “nothing other
than butter and cheese, and that in such quantity that it
appeared as a wonder for the foreigner who could buy

nothing less than a whole cheese or a small vat of butter.'' 12
One scholar has calculated that between 1641 and 1650,
the city of Gouda alone marketed an average of 4,892,000
pounds of cheese a year. 13 The close association of the dairy
industry with the earth and with the prosperity of the
Netherlands appears in the allegorical print Earth (Terra) by
Nicolaes de Bruyn (1571-1656) after a design by Maerten de
Vos (1532-1603), the upper margin of which includes a stack
of cheeses and a butter churn, as well as a cow, traditionally
associated with the earth on which it grazes (fig. 21.2). In the
side margins are representations of fruit and vegetables.

Peeters's Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries
similarly includes only locally produced food. Like the large
still lifes of Snyders, the painting continues the tradition
of the xenia of ancient Greece, still lifes of foodstuffs by which
the prosperous Athenians showed off their well-stocked
larders. The coincidence of the Twelve Years' Truce from 1609
to 1621 and the production of still lifes of local produce
in both the Southern and the Northern Netherlands during
the second decade of the seventeenth century suggest an
additional association. Since antiquity, the prosperity of the
land has been associated with peace. Lamenting the abuse
and neglect the land suffered during the long war with
Spain, seventeenth-century Dutch poets praised the produc¬
tivity of the Netherlands during times of peace and the
ability to spread a bounteous table with food that came from
the surrounding countryside. 14 Arranged with a keen
sense of design and appreciation for the different textures
and colors that invite the viewer to participate in the meal,
Peeters's painting celebrates the prosperity of the house¬
hold as well as the local dairy industry and the fertility of
the land, which would have been recognized by her contem¬
poraries as benefits of political peace.

Suitably, this masterpiece by Peeters, one of the few
woman painters of the seventeenth century to be recog¬
nized for her pioneering achievement as an independent
painter, was much later owned by the first Dutch woman
to earn a doctorate in art history, Johanna Suzanne Goekoop-
de Jongh (1877-1946). 15

136

Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries

Fig. 21.1

Fig. 21.2

Fig. 21.1 Clara Peeters, Still Life with Crayfish
and an Artichoke, ca. 1615, oil on panel, 13 x 18 Vs in.
(33 x 46 cm). Private collection

Fig. 21.2 Nicolaes de Bruyn (1571-1656) after
Maerten de Vos (1532-1603), Terra, ca. 1600.
Engraving, y 5 /s x 9 in. (19.5 x 23 cm). The British
Museum, London (inv. no. 1937,0915.341)

137

Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR21.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR21.2 A detail in IRR of the artichoke reserve
shows that the artist precisely applied the darker
paints of the background plate and saltcellar up to
and around the artichoke shape but not through it.
This suggests that an outline probably exists, but it
is not visible in infrared. Note the streaky
imprimatura in the body of the artichoke.

Fig. TR21.3 Digital micrograph (50X magnification)
of the tips of the artichoke, showing the different
colors

Fig. TR21.4 Detail of the butter on plate showing
the paint application in both

The panel, about % inch thick, has been
cradled, but the edges of the panel
retain some beveling. The center of the
cradle is engraved De Wild Holland,
presumably the name of the manufac¬
turer. The panel has a slight horizontal
convex bow. The left side of the panel
is Vs inch taller than the right side, and
the bottom is 14 inch wider than the
top. A loss at the lower left edge of the
panel was restored with a piece of wood
(14 inch wide by 2 inches high). The
lower right corner has some small losses.
The top and bottom edges show minor
deterioration, possibly caused by insects.

The cream- or peach-colored ground is
fairly thick or may be composed of more
than one layer. The infrared reflecto¬
gram (IRR) (fig. TR21.1) revealed that an
overall streaky imprimatura, contain¬
ing carbon-black pigment, had been
applied with a wide brush over the
ground layer. Some of the brushstrokes
are vertical, while others are horizontal.

IRR also revealed faint dark lines
around some of the still-life elements.
These outlines have been used to define

the areas of reserve in this relatively
complex composition. A good example
is the artichoke, where the IRR shows
thin, dark lines that set out precisely
the area to be kept in reserve. Peeters
then applied the darker paints of
the background plate and saltcellar up
to and around the artichoke but not
through it. The artichoke was painted
next, and the outer green leaves overlay
the dark background and saltcellar
(fig. TR21.2).

Several pentimenti, visible in IRR,
indicate the artist reduced the size of
some of the still-life elements. Two
examples where the reserves are larger
than the finished objects are the bread
roll on the right side of the painting—
this was originally higher and larger—
and the large metal plate on the right
side of the painting, which also has
a larger and higher reserve. It is more
difficult to tell if the sizes of the other
still-life elements have been changed.
The left and right edges of the blue
butter plate, the largest cheese, and the
saltcellar have halos that could be
interpreted as earlier, larger shapes, but
these halos may also be the result of
the artist working out the contours
of each object in paint. Interesting,

however, is the fact that the larger halos
exist where most of the retouching is
located. This retouching shows up dark
in the IRR. If these halos are the result
of earlier, larger still-life elements, that
might explain the presence of the
retouching. Over time paint becomes
transparent and these earlier shapes
may have become visible. IRR also
revealed a rectangular area located in
the upper left corner of the painting
where there is less carbon-black paint.

The entire painting is surprisingly
thinly painted, even the tangible bread
roll. Thin, dark paints describe the
crust, and highlights are only relatively
thicker. The white of the roll was
painted with cream- and brown-colored
paints applied with curling strokes of
small brushes. The cheeses were simi¬
larly painted, except for the dark cheese,
which is composed mostly of thin
washes of dark browns over the ground.

138

Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries

Peeters described the artichoke in detail
with numerous fine strokes of various
colors. The pink choke has a thin, light
gray underpaint that allows the ground
to show through it. This gray layer is
glazed with green-blue paint contain¬
ing a copper-based pigment and
finished with fine, individual strokes of
local color, for example, pink for the
inner leaves of the choke. These strokes
of paint have soft, rounded edges. The
tiny, pointed tips of the artichoke's
outer leaves are remarkably detailed.
Each tip was painted with a tan color
that was lined on the inside with a short
stroke of red (vermilion-cinnabar).
Finally, cream-colored highlights were
applied (fig. TR21.3). Only with higher
magnification can one appreciate the
artist's efforts.

The first layer of the cherries is an
orange-colored paint that contains at
least the pigment vermilion-cinnabar,
which was applied over the already
painted pewter plate and tabletop. The
artist glazed the orange layer with a red
lake that was made thicker and richer
for the shadows. A touch of white
provides the highlight that completes
the globes of fruit.

The blue decoration of the porcelain
plate was colored by the pigment
ultramarine; where there is no decora¬
tion, the streaky, dark gray imprimatura
on the ground is visible. Thin shadows
and highlights give form to the plate.
The butter on the plate is painted with
parallel, slightly curling strokes of
cream- to light-brown-colored paints,
which contain primarily the pigments
lead-tin yellow and lead white. Thin
brown shadows were applied in a brushy
manner (fig. TR21.4).

The thin brown paint of the background
courses around the still life, which may
already have been painted or laid in
to some extent. Peeters left some space,
which may be part of a reserve, between
the objects and the first application
of the background, perhaps to allow
adjustments. These areas appear in IRR
as halos of some objects. To complete
the painting, the artist worked back and
forth, from background to still life,
adjusting the size and form of objects.

The pewter plate was painted around
the artichoke, the outer leaves of which
overlap the cheese and saltcellar. The
bread roll was laid in or held in reserve
before the table was painted; after
the cheese plate was painted, the artist
raised the top of the roll slightly. The
X-radiograph showed no obvious
pentimenti.

The majuscule letters of the signature
are a medium dark gray color. They
show some abrasion but remain mostly
intact.

The condition of the painting is good.
Ultraviolet light (UV) exposed scattered,
discreet restorations in the background
that were no doubt applied to hide
fine cracks with tiny losses. There also
seems to be some toning on the table
and background to cover abrasions and
cracked thin paint. The light blue
decoration of the plate may have lost
some glaze in the areas of shadow. The
painting has a very thick and plastic
varnish, which has a strong fluorescence
in UV. The final varnish application
appears to have been sprayed.

139

Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries

Jan Porcellis

(1580/84-1632)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, ca. 1629 Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter Collection

Oil on wood, 16% x 24 Vi in. M.2009.106.10

(41.3 x 61.6 cm)

Signed lower right, on plank: IP

140

essels in a Moderate Breeze is what seventeenth-century
Dutch inventories refer to as eengrauwtje —literally,

“a small gray.” 1 Painted loosely using a monochro¬
matic palette of gray paint applied so thinly that the pink
tone of the lightly prepared wood panel is visible, the
picture evokes the impression of a pervasive atmosphere
heavily laden with moisture. The atmospheric effect mutes
the brown color of the boats and red clothing of the sailors
as well as the pale blue sky that visually merges with the
heaving sea.

Vessels in a Moderate Breeze represents a remarkable
break from the large, carefully defined, colorful compositions
filled with anecdotal detail and dramatic action that Jan
Porcellis painted early in his career under the influence of
Hendrick Cornelisz. Vroom (1563-1640), such as A Sea Battle
by Night and A Storm at Sea. 2 By the late 1620s, the probable
date of the Carter panel, Porcellis had introduced a new
genre of marine painting focused on the inland fishing and
transport boats that supported the local Dutch economy.
Restricting the composition to three anonymous single-mast
boats, reducing the color range to near monochrome, and
lowering the horizon, he makes the open water, sky, and
atmosphere the real subject of his painting. Human presence
is virtually absent. It is the white foam of the waves rising
and splashing in irregular patterns and the dark, billowing
clouds scudding across the pale blue sky that command
our attention.

Despite the painting's apparent simplicity, Porcellis
carefully planned Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, which is one of
his most successful compositions. Virtually abandoning
the compositional device of a dark foreground, he places the
viewer directly in the picture, seemingly on a boat following
the same course as the three boats seen heeling in the stiff
wind. The diminishing scale and clarity of the boats sailing
on a diagonal path toward the distant horizon create the
impression of pictorial depth. Mounting toward the right,
storm clouds blown by the brisk breeze that stirs up the
sea continue the diagonal line of the wind-filled sails. Loose
brushstrokes of rapidly applied thin, at times transparent,
paint emphasize the movement of the pounding waves.

According to Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678),
Porcellis, whom he called “the great Raphael of sea painting”
(dien grooten Raphel in \ zeeschilderen), achieved the

“discriminating naturalness” (keurlijker natuerlijkheyt)—
the freshness and spontaneity—of his paintings by care¬
fully and fully conceptualizing his composition before he
began to paint. 3 Several closely related drawings and paint¬
ings from the late 1620s show that Porcellis was working
out ideas that found their most satisfying resolution in the
Carter painting, which probably dates about 1629. The
composition of Vessels in a Moderate Breeze is closely related to
an ink and gray wash drawing. 4 Drawn by Porcellis and
published in 1627 by Claes Jansz. Visscher II (1587-1652), it
represents boats sailing along a diagonal course toward the
viewer (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-6706). 5
A large drawing by Porcellis in the Musee du Louvre, Paris
(inv. no. 23290), of a boat heeling in the wind similar to
the foremost boat in the Carter painting is an independent
work from about the same time. 6 As in the Louvre drawing,
in which a rowboat sails toward the left near the horizon,
in the Carter painting Porcellis subtly balances the composi¬
tion by placing a large merchant ship sailing on the horizon
toward the right. In the distant left, a rowboat mounts the
waves in the opposite direction. Confronting the challenge
of the sea, the sailors are nevertheless in control. 7 The care¬
fully balanced composition using only a few elements is
also found in other paintings by Porcellis from the late 1620s,
including Sailboats and Rowboats on a Slightly Restless Sea
(Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden, inv. no. S 877) and Stormy Sea
(Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no. 5742). Dated 1629, they
share with the Carter painting the monochromatic palette
and the loose handling of the waves and broad expanse of sky.

Enormously popular during his lifetime, paintings
by Porcellis were owned by some of the most famous painters
of the seventeenth century, including Rembrandt (six),
Rubens (one), Allaert van Everdingen (thirteen), and Jan van
de Cappelle (sixteen). Porcellis's aligning of boats along
a diagonal receding across an open stretch of water became
a standard device in marine painting. The impact of his
innovative works was realized not only in marine paintings
but also in the landscapes of Jan van Goyen (1596-1656),
Salomon van Ruysdael (1600/1603-1670), and the Haarlem
landscape painters of the late 1620s and 1630s, who adopted
low horizons and towering skies with shifting clouds for
both compositional and emotional effects.

141

Porcellis, Vessels in a Moderate Breeze

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR22.1 Infrared reflectogram

The panel is approximately 3 /s inch
thick and beveled. It is in excellent
condition except for a mild bow. The
panel is Vs inch taller on the left edge
than on the right.

The light-colored ground is quite thin
and not very opaque. Infrared reflectog-
raphy (IRR) found no underdrawing
(fig. TR22.1). It may be that Porcellis
began his painting directly on the panel
starting with cursory brushstrokes
that were then developed and incorpo¬
rated into the overall composition. This
was also discovered in the landscape
paintings by Esaias van de Velde (cat. no.
31), Philips Koninck (cat. no. 19), and
Jan van Goyen (cat. nos. 11,12). If Porcellis

had used an underdrawing material
such as red chalk or certain pigments
that are transparent in IRR, then
the underdrawing would be extremely
difficult to detect.

The paints are generally thinly applied,
leaving evident brushstrokes. The
color of the wood passing through the
thin ground and paint layers gives
the picture an overall pinkish tonality.
The grain of the wood is also visible
on the surface of the painting.

The sky and clouds were worked up
directly on the ground with blue paint
that contains smalt for the blue sky
and white-to-gray paints for the clouds
and sea. Where the paint is very thinly
applied, the wood color helps to create

the shadows of the clouds and waves.
Most of the vessels were painted over
the already painted sea. However, the
hull and sails of the foremost boat were
painted on the ground layer, though
some of its lines and masts were painted
into the wet paint of the sky.

The dark paint of the signature was
brushed into the lighter wet paint of the
plank. The small brush left a groove in
the wet paint, pushing the dark paint to
its sides.

142

Porcellis, Vessels in a Moderate Breeze

A crackle pattern is present throughout
the paint layers, but it is most notice¬
able in the sky. Although the painting
is in good condition, there have been
several campaigns of restoration.
Ultraviolet light shows toning of the
wood grain, which had no doubt
become more obvious over time. To the
right of the foreground sail, there is
a vertical, irregular l-inch-wide restora¬
tion from the horizon up into the lower
sky, which is visible in the IRR. The
cloud and sea near the horizon on the left
side of the painting have some toning.
The cloud at the upper left appears dark
in ultraviolet light, as if it had been
lightly toned in an earlier restoration
and the tone covers original paint. The
varnish is rather flat and a little hazy.

143

Porcellis, Vessels in a Moderate Breeze

Frans Post

(1612-1680)

Brazilian Landscape Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

with Plantation House , 1655 M.2003.108.3

Oil on wood, 18% x 24% in.

Provenance

(46.7x62.9 cm)

Exhibitions

Signed and dated lower center, on rock: F. Post/165[5];

References

inscribed in dark paint on left center tree above the
roof: D

144

B razilian Landscape with Plantation House, dated 1655,
was painted more than ten years after Frans Post
returned to the Netherlands in 1644, settling in his
native city, Haarlem. He had spent seven and a half years in
Brazil, where he had gone to record the landscape and
colonial buildings for Johan Maurits (1604-1679), count of
Nassau-Siegen, and from 1636 to 1644 the governor of
Pernambuco, the Dutch colony in northern Brazil. Also in
the governor's entourage were the painter Albert Eckhout
(ca. 1610-1666), who was to record the flora and fauna as
well as the people of Brazil, and two scientists, the astrono¬
mer, cartographer, and naturalist Georg Marcgraf
(1610-1648) and Maurits's personal physician, Willem Piso
(1611-1678), who was to study the plants and medicines of
the region.^

Returning to The Hague in the same year as Post,
Johan Maurits brought with him a large collection of rarities
as well as eighteen landscapes by Post and paintings by
Eckhout—still lifes and life-size paintings of people repre¬
senting the different ethnic races, including a large painting
of native dancers. 2 He installed the rarities “for the benefit
of the learned” in the marble entrance of the Mauritshuis,
his newly constructed magnificent palace in The Hague,
designed by Jacob van Campen (1596-1657) and Frans Post's
brother Pieter Post (1608-1669). 3 The intended placement
of the paintings by Post and Eckhout is unknown. 4
Guillaume de Lamberty, who was a witness to the fire that
destroyed the interior of the house in 1704, mourned the
destruction of the murals with exotic Brazilian motifs that
decorated the ground-floor walls and double staircase and
may have been painted by Eckhout, who remained in the
prince's service until i653. a

The paintings and rarities, as well as the real native
dancers whom Johan Maurits brought back, celebrated the
Dutch colony and touted the accomplishments of its for¬
mer governor; they also whetted the European appetite for
the exotic cultures of faraway lands. Post's first commission
in the Netherlands was from the stadholder Frederik
Hendrik (1584-1647), who on 29 May 1644 paid eight hun¬
dred florins for a large painting. View of the West Indies (lost). 6

Although only a few people had entree to the
Mauritshuis, diplomatic gifts, including those in 1654 to
Frederick III, king of Denmark and Norway, and in 1679 to
Louis XIV of France, extended the fame of Post and Eckhout
and increased curiosity about Brazil. 7 The publication
by Caspar Barlaeus (1584-1648) of Rerum per Octennium in
Brasilia (Amsterdam, 1647) with thirty-three etchings after
drawings by Post, followed by Historia Naturalis Brasiliae...
(Leiden, 1648) by Piso and Marcgraf, with illustrations based
on their natural history drawings, as well as works by Post
and Eckhout, expanded the market for Post's landscapes
beyond Johan Maurits's personal and political circle.

In Haarlem, where Post joined the painters' guild in 1646,

the artist employed what must have been an extensive
repertoire of careful drawings to produce the provocative
and increasingly decorative images of Brazil that appealed
to his European audience.

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House is typical of the
pictures Post painted in the Netherlands during the first
half of the 1650s. Painted in tones of reddish-brown and
beige on a wood panel, the composition is divided between
a panorama on the right, where the landscape stretches
across flat river marshes (varzea) into the distance, and a close-
up view of a two-story house. 8 Behind the house a grove
of tropical trees individually defined as different species is
silhouetted against the blue sky, which is animated by
only a few tufts of clouds. The open foreground, unfettered
by framing devices, and the relatively low horizon create
a sense of intimacy with the house and with the figures on
the right, who appear to be a natural part of the landscape. 9
Painting with the precision of a draftsman and the eye of
a naturalist. Post describes the delicate details that define
the individual birds and textures of the foliage.

Post, who had been commissioned by Johan Maurits
to document the colony's landscape with its forts and
buildings, carefully described the house in a way that sug¬
gests it was a specific structure he had seen in Brazil, similar
to the one included in the distance of one of the drawings
of Fort Prince Willem that he had prepared for Barlaeus's
book (fig. 23.1). 10 The second-story balcony would have pro¬
vided views of the sugarcane plantations and flat landscape. 11
A similar house appears in the closely related painting
Plantation House (private collection, Rio de Janeiro). 12 How¬
ever, in that painting, as well as in other contemporary
paintings, the house is more substantial and apparently well
maintained. By comparison, the house in the Carter paint¬
ing is poorly constructed and dilapidated. Both the porch
and the roof, supported by flimsy poles, sag under their own
weight. The four-sided red rush roof and wattle-and-daub
walls of the second floor, supported by a stone foundation,
suggest that it was built by the Portuguese, apparently
on the ruins of another building. 13 Post often included ruins
of Portuguese buildings in his later works, but they are
unusual in his paintings of the 1650s.

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House reflects both
the reality of the Dutch colony and an idyllic fantasy.
Motivated by the potential profits to be derived from the
cultivation of sugar, the Dutch West India Company,
established in 1621, took control of northeast Brazil in 1630,
when they captured Recife from the Portuguese, who had
arrived in 1500. The area remained under Dutch control
until 1654, when the Portuguese retook it. Although
undoubtedly biased, Barlaeus described the governorship
of Johan Maurits as having endeavored to be fair to
everyone. Under the Dutch, there was religious freedom,
and Portuguese-Brazilians, Sephardic Jews, and Dutchmen

145

Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House

reportedly lived together in relative harmony. 14 Portuguese
colonists who accepted Dutch rule were allowed to remain
on their land with complete control of their property. 11
The sugar plantations, which thus continued to be run by
Portuguese or mazombos (the Brazilian offspring of
Portuguese immigrants), 16 relied heavily on slaves for their
workforce. To meet the demand, the West India Company,
which also controlled the west coast of Africa, transported
great numbers of slaves from Angola and Guinea to work on
the sugar plantations in Brazil. In 1630 the number of slaves
in Pernambuco alone is estimated to have been 40,000.
Between 1630 and 1651 the Dutch imported an additional
26,286 slaves from Africa. 1

The man in the black hat, jacket, and breeches is pro¬
bably the owner of the sugar mill ( senhorde engenho ) who
has come to speak with the farm manager ( lavradorde cana),
to whom the house belongs. 18 On the road past the house
a group of African slaves have set down their baskets of
produce and rest along the side of the road or dance to the
beat of an atabaque. The four lighter-skinned figures
walking down the road into the distance represent indige¬
nous people. 19 The men wear shirts and drawers of
white fabric, probably cotton or linen, and the women white
smocks that contemporaries reported were to cover their
private parts “more than for any other use.” 20

The image differs from what Europeans knew from
sixteenth-century maps and prints, which represent
forests with naked warriors surrounded by exotic animals.
Largely based on the early images published by Theodor
de Bry (1528-1598), certain indigenous Brazilians were
portrayed as cannibals, an image that Post himself portrayed
in an illustration of a Tapuya cooking human remains for

Barlaeus’s book and that Eckhout repeated in his full-scale
ethnographic portrait of a Tapuya woman standing against
a plantation landscape clutching a severed hand and with
a severed foot in her basket (fig. 23.2).®

Similarly, in contrast to Eckhout’s portraits of an
African man and woman, which emphasize their strength
and fertility as well as their origins. Post’s slaves are dressed
as colonials who belong to the plantation rather than to
Africa. The women wear long white skirts and blouses with
full sleeves over which they wear a kind of vest. The men
are bare-chested and wear short wraparound skirts of simi¬
lar white cloth. White bands of cotton tied around the heads
of both the men and the women kept the sweat generated
by the hot, humid climate off their faces. There is nothing in
the appearance or demeanor of the slaves to suggest the
harsh conditions under which they are known to have lived
and worked. 22 Their relaxed, joyous behavior—like that of
the dancing peasants in David Teniers’s (1610-1690) con¬
temporary paintings (Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, inv.
no. 2700) —reflects the European view of the idyllic life
of “natural” people.^

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House is one of Post’s
first paintings to introduce the motif of slaves dancing,
a theme that he would include often in later works. Like
the addition of tropical animals, trees, and plants, the happy
slaves added an element of exoticism that was meant
to appeal to the curiosity of his patrons and encourage con¬
tinuing support of the Brazilian colony, which the Dutch
had lost to the Portuguese in 1654. The increasing prolifera¬
tion of exotic details in Post’s later paintings, such as
View of Olinda, dated 1662 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv.
no. SK-A-742), attests to their decorative appeal. 1 *

146

Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House

Fig. 23.1 Frans Post, FortPrins Willem (detail), 1645.
Pen and brown ink with brush and gray wash; some
black chalk underdrawings on paper, 12% x 20 ks in.
(32.5 x 51 cm). The British Museum, London,
bequeathed by Sir Hans Sloane, transferred from the
British Library (inv. no. 1928,0310.90.17)

Fig. 23.2 Albert Eckhout (ca. 1610-1666), Tapuya
Woman with a Severed Hand and Foot, 1641. Oil on canvas,
107 Vs x 65 in. (272 x 165 cm). The National Museum
of Denmark (inv. no. N38A2)

Fig. 23.2

147

Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR23.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR23.2 A few areas in which underdrawing was
found

The panel is about 14 inch thick and
composed of two boards. The tight join
is located 8% inches from the top of the
panel. The back of the panel, which
is beveled and stained or thinly painted
brown, appears worn. A horizontal
crack runs through the upper board of
the panel about 3 Vz inches from the top.
The crack has been reinforced on the
reverse with a strip of fine, plain-weave
fabric (2 Vz inches wide), which appears
to be very old and carries an inscription.
All four sides of the panel have been
extended with 14 -inch-wide strips of
wood attached with nails. The paint
on these later additions approximately
matches the colors of the picture.

There appears to be a single, thin,
cream-colored ground on the panel. The
painting was difficult to see in the
unmodified infrared reflectogram (IRR)
because of the high infrared reflectivity
of the calcium-carbonate ground.
Luckily, the upper paint layers of the
landscape were very transparent in
infrared, and, once the contrast and
brightness of the IRR were adjusted,
the underdrawing became more visible
(fig- TR23.1).

The powdery appearance of the dark
underdrawing suggests it was done
with a dry drawing material containing
carbon black, probably black chalk or
charcoal. A strong horizontal line in the
underdrawing marks the horizon on
the right and continues through the
house to the left side. Similar lines were
found throughout the composition:
in the house, in some of the figures, and
in parts of the vegetation around the

house (fig. TR23.2). Areas of dark shadow
in the IRR suggest the roof might have
been higher and the house farther to the
left side.

Paints range in color from translucent
dark to opaque light. They are generally
thinly applied with some slightly
thicker application used for the archi¬
tecture and tree leaves. The artist
applied a thin blue color (containing
mostly smalt and lead white) for the sky
(fig. TR23.3), leaving reserves for the
trees and house. Post laid in the foliage
of the trees with translucent, dark
brown paint that he subsequently built
up with predominantly copper-based
pigments. Although the trunks and
tops of the central coconut trees had

148

Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House

Fig. TR23.3 Digital microphotograph (175X
magnification) of the thin blue layer for the sky,
which contains mainly smalt (blue particles)
and lead white pigments

Fig. TR23.4 Detail of figures at lower right. The
landscape colors and brushstrokes are obviously
seen through the figure seated nearest the house.

reserves, the ends of the fronds were
layered over the paint of the sky. Some
of the edges of the architecture were
also painted over already painted sky
and landscape.

In the foreground. Post applied the
light brown earth color, leaving reserves
for the plants and the building. Paint
for the bare earth contains iron-based
pigments, carbon black, lead white,
and calcium white. The green, grassy
areas were painted in the reserves.
Where the green abuts the bare earth
there is a warm, translucent, honey-
colored layer that may be discolored
copper resinate. The staffage was
painted over the landscape. The colors
and texture of the plants and the earth
show through the figure seated nearest
the house (fig. TR23.4).

For the roof of the building. Post
applied a layer of terracotta-colored
paint that contains ochers and lead-
white pigments. Light yellow and dark

gray paint delineate the tiles. The roof
was painted over some foliage of the
trees. The dark mauve paint of the
signature was applied on the dry paint
of the rock. The script is abraded but
readable except for the last digit.

There is a fine craquelure throughout
the paint layers. The surface of the
painting has some general abrasion.
Ultraviolet light shows a restrained
amount of toning in the sky that is
under the varnish, and it also reveals
restorations along the horizontal crack
at the top of the picture. In addition,
there are some restorations in the large
bush at the right side, and some of the
figures have been lightly reinforced.
The medium-thick varnish appears
fairly old; grayed and yellowed, it
fluoresces greenish-yellow in ultra¬
violet light.

149

Post, Brazilian Landscape with Plantation House

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Adam Pynacker
(Pijnacker)

(1620/22-1673) 1

View of a Harbor in Schiedam , ca. 1650
Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in.
(55.2x45.4 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.11

150

L ocated just to the west of Rotterdam, where the River
Schie meets the Nieuwe Maas, Schiedam was an
important river port in the seventeenth century. It
later gained fame as the center of gin production. In View
of a Harbor in Schiedam, Adam Pynacker, a native of the city,
represents the wooden drawbridge that crossed the Koorte
Haven where it meets the larger Lange Haven. 2 Today,
the bridge has been replaced, but the location remains recog¬
nizable when viewed from the Koorte Haven east toward
the Lange Haven. In the background of the painting,
a merchant ship, its sails drying in the sun, is docked along
the Lange Haven. 3 To the left of the bridge, a man reads
from a sheet of paper to a small crowd of children and adults,
perhaps announcing the contents of the ship or the news
of the day. In the foreground a boatman leans over the mid¬
section of a rowboat beached in the shallows on the edge of
the Koorte Haven and points in the opposite direction while
addressing a man in regent's attire with a glove in his right
hand. The gentleman stands at the bow of the large rowboat
typical of those that were standard equipment carried by
merchant vessels. The large kedge anchor and heavy rope in
the stern would have been used to assist a ship to maneuver
in the port. 1

A sense of quiet tranquillity pervades the painting.
Rendered with a limited palette of warm shades of brown
and ocher and contre-jour light effects, the painting evokes
the impression of morning, when the rising sun casts long
shadows. 5 The light silhouettes the figures in the crowd
against the brightly lit ground, while picking out details of
the boat and people in the foreground and casting the
subtle reflection of the stern of the rowboat in the still water.
The sparkling highlights of the broken branches in the
immediate foreground anticipate the broken tree trunks
that introduce many of Pynacker's mature paintings. See,
for example, his Boatmen Moored on the Shore of an Italian Lake,
about 1665 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-321).

The parallel placement of the rowboat, bridge, and
ship marks the recession into depth within the picture
without any clear transition. Even the figures in the crowd
who appear to stand close to each other are rendered in
different scales, and the tiny figure of a man crossing the
bridge is too large for the ship he is leaving but far too small
for the crowd he is approaching. Several authors have noted
that the unsettling jumps in scale and perspective within
the painting are characteristic of Pynacker's early composi¬
tions and thus suggestive of a date about 1650 to 1653. 6 His
struggle with the general composition is evident in the

infrared image of the painting, which reveals that he had
originally placed a larger boat in the foreground pointing
toward the opening of the bridge (see Technical Report). After
partially painting it, he removed the boat and repainted
the foreground, introducing a smaller boat oriented
perpendicular to the original vessel and added the figures.

View of a Harbor in Schiedam is the only painting of
a Dutch scene and the only painting of an urban setting
known by Pynacker, who is famed for his views of foreign
ports and river scenes bathed in southern light with
contrasts of dark shadows with sparkling highlights (fig.
24.1). The subject of transport and the contre-jour lighting
effects, however, closely relate the view of Schiedam to
the artist's other paintings, in which the influence of the
Italianate painters, especially the works of Jan Both (see cat.
no. 5), was significant. Pynacker's paintings of riverboats
laden with cargo in the proximity of Italian architecture
suggest that he was in Italy, possibly between 1646 and 1649.
However, he could also easily have adopted the charac¬
teristic warm southern light and images of foreign ports
from the numerous Italianate paintings and prints that
were available in the Netherlands by the 1640s. His original
conception of the boat in the Carter painting, for example,
closely resembles Both's etching Landscape with Bridge, the
PonteMolle (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, on loan from the
Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten, inv. no.
RP-P-H-H-1294).

View of a Harbor in Schiedam is one of the earliest of what
became a separate genre of seventeenth-century Dutch paint¬
ing, the cityscape. Originally limited primarily to prints,
following the signing of the peace with Spain in 1648, the
depiction of recognizable buildings and historic monuments,
often in imaginary settings, became a popular subject
for paintings. The collecting of cityscapes was undoubtedly
often motivated by civic pride, but there also appears to
have been a market for them among tourists visiting the
city. Cosimo de' Medici, for example, purchased a painting
of the much acclaimed newly erected Town Hall from Jan
van der Heyden (1637-1712) during his visit to Amsterdam
in 1668/ The incidental view in Pynacker's painting, how¬
ever, distinguishes it from typical views of cities and towns,
which focus on real or imaginary landmarks. Topograph¬
ically accurate views of minor locations within cities appear
in prints, such as Reinier (Nooms) Zeeman's Various Views
of Amsterdam, about 1650-51, but rarely in paintings. The com¬
position and topographical accuracy of Pynacker's portrayal
of the physical appearance and activity of the Schiedam port

151

Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam

recall Zeeman's 1641 engraving DeEenhornsluis (Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-12.998), which represents tall
ships on the opposite side of a drawbridge.

While Pynacker's painting may reflect his pride in the
Schiedam port, the prominence of the gentleman stand¬
ing next to the bow of the boat suggests that the painting
may celebrate the man rather than the city. Dressed as
a contemporary regent with flowing dark hair, black breeches,
and beaver hat, the gentleman stands in the sunlight
against the backdrop of a building next to which a large ship
laden with cargo lies in port. Unlike figures in Pynacker's
other paintings, he is isolated and not directly involved in
an activity other than responding to the boatman.

The juxtaposition of the figure of the regent and the
ship and the building on the far side of the canal, where
the Lange and Koorte Havens meet, may be significant. The
view looking east along the Koorte Haven was probably
made from the rear of the property owned by Pynacker's
father, the second lot to the north on the Lange Haven. 8 The
gentleman, who is too young to be the artist's father (1579/
82-1660), looks similar in appearance to Pynacker himself
as he appears with long hair and a mustache in a portrait
painted by his father-in-law, Wybrand de Geest (ca. 1592-
1661), in 1660 (fig. 24.2). 9 It is possible, therefore, that
the figure could be the artist who, like his father, was also
a wine merchant and shipowner. 10

The similarity of the appearance of the gentleman
to Pynacker may, however, be coincidental. The sign on the
corner of the building represents a man in red trousers
standing on the back of a whale, probably a reference to the
story of Jonah and the whale and possibly to the whaling
industry, in which many in the city were involved. No record
of a business that can be associated with the sign has been
identified, however. According to J. M. M. Jansen, archivist
at the Gemeentearchief, Schiedam, the building on the
southwest corner of the meeting of the canals was owned
from 1638 to 1649 by Jan Willemsz. de Wijs, a member of the
city council, alderman, and burgomaster. 11 In 1649 De Wijs
sold the property to Vranck Hubrechtsz. van Dorp, a glazier
( glazenmaker ) who owned the property until 1655. In that
year, the property was bought by another glazier, Jan Jansz.
Braem. 12 Although there is no evidence other than the
similarity of the name, the reference to Jonah could refer to
the Schiedam bailiff Jonas Pietersz. Jonassen (1622-1667).
Like Pynacker, and approximately the same age, Jonassen
was a landscape painter who had traveled to Italy, possibly
with Pynacker. In 1650, when the Carter painting was
probably painted, Jonassen would have been approximately
twenty-eight to thirty years old, the apparent age of the
man portrayed in the painting. 13 Without documentation,
however, the identity of the regent remains a mystery.

152

Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam

Fig. 24.1

Fig. 24.2

Fig. 24.1 Adam Pynacker, Schippers met hun boten aan
de oevervan een Italiaans meer (Boatmen Moored on the
Shore of an Italian Lake), 1650-70. Oil on canvas on
panel, 38.4 x 33.7 in. (97.5 x 85.5 cm). Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-321)

Fig. 24.2 Wybrand de Geest (ca. 1592-1661), Portrait
of Adam Pynacker, 1660. Oil on panel, 28 14 x 22 Vs in.
(72 x 56.5 cm). Fries Museum, Leeuwarden,
loan from the Ottema-Kingma Stichting (inv. no.
S1957-665)

153

Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR24.1 X-radiograph shows original canvas
wrapping over stretcher, cusping, and the reserves
for the buildings and the bridge. Vertical losses
through the center, which appear dark in the
X-radiograph, may have been caused by water
dripping down the painting.

Fig. TR24.2 Infrared reflectogram

The medium-weight, plain-weave fabric
is lined to coarser plain-weave fabric,
probably with an aqueous adhesive;
tape covers the edges. The X-radiograph
shows some original canvas and the
tacking margins, which are now tat¬
tered, wrapping over the stretcher. The
X-radiograph reveals cusping along
the perimeter (fig. TR24.1).

The canvas has a cream-colored,
medium-thick ground that almost fills
the canvas weave. The ground is visible
on the right side of the picture where
the sky and buildings meet. Infrared
reflectography (IRR) revealed a consider¬
able amount of underdrawing and
a significant pentimento (fig. TR24.2).
Most of the underdrawing was found in
the bridge and consists of thin, straight
lines done with a drafting tool, such
as a straightedge. The even width and
darkness of the lines suggest that the
artist used a pen, pencil, or metalpoint.

The underdrawn lines do not always
coincide with the painted bridge. The
ropes, for instance, were originally
angled rather than vertical; the middle
diagonal beam was positioned farther
to the right; some of the horizontal
beams were also in different positions;
and both of the upright supports seem
to have been underdrawn farther to
the left. Similar fine, sharp lines were
also found in some of the figures on the
left side of the painting by the bridge.

The most significant discovery revealed
in IRR was the pentimento of a large
boat with its bow set at what are now
the abutments of the bridge. This boat
appears to have been both underdrawn
with fine lines (similar to the bridge)
and then loosely developed a little
further with a brush and a medium
containing carbon black (fig. TR24.3).
Pynacker covered up this earlier boat by
painting the two men and the smaller
rowboat on top of it. Dark shapes in the
center of the original boat may be cargo
or perhaps even figures.

IRR also revealed some adjustments to
the top of the building on the right,
which initially had a higher roofline, as
well as adjustments to the rooflines of
the buildings on the opposite side of the
canal, in the left center of the painting.
The shape of the hat of the man to
the right was also changed; the hat was
originally more rounded.

Paints range from opaque, light colors
to thin, translucent darks. Pynacker
applied medium-thick light blue paint
on the ground for the sky, leaving
reserves for the buildings and the
bridge. He painted the dark blue paint
of the clouds into the still-wet light
blue layer. The blue pigment in these
paints is smalt. Over the blue layer, the
artist applied warm colors to produce
the glow in the sky.

154

Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam

Fig. TR24.3 Pentimento of the large boat in IRR
indicated with red lines

Most of the cityscape was painted
directly on the ground. The buildings
were laid in with thin gray-blue paint,
and the sails in front of the buildings
were laid in on the ground with a thin
red paint abutting the gray-blue layer
of the buildings. The gray-blue layer
was worked up with a reddish color and
the sails with local color. The red layer
beneath the sails transmits through the
thin local color on top of it. The small
yellow sail on the left edge of the paint¬
ing was, however, directly worked up
on the ground. In the right part of the
painting, flags, sails, and rigging were
painted over the light blue of the sky.
The artist adjusted the sky over the
buildings and the buildings over the sky,
and the foreground landscape was laid
in with a warmish red color that was
then built up to give form and details.
The scene was largely completed before
the artist painted the figures. His
initials, AP, reportedly on the bridge
abutment at center left, could not
be found.

The painting reads well and is in rather
good condition, even though there are
a few condition issues. In the sky a
medium crackle pattern with numerous
curving and circular cracks has had a
tendency to lift. In the middle, a vertical
strip about one-third the width of the
painting has numerous small vertical
losses from flaking, perhaps induced by
water dripping down the painting.
There is some restoration in the flags,
sails, and rigging and in the clouds. The
thin glazes that give the sky a warm
glow are somewhat abraded and have
been compensated with toning. There
appears to be a later warm tone or
pigmented varnish layer over much of
the sky, which collected in the cracks.

155

Pynacker, View of a Harbor in Schiedam

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Jacob Isaacksz.
van Ruisdael

(1628/29-1682)

Nicolaes Pietersz.
Berchem

(l62l/22-l683)

The Great Oak, 1652

Oil on canvas, 33 14 x 41 Va in.

(84.5 x 104.8 cm)

Signed and dated lower right: JVRuisdael 1652

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter in honor

of the museum’s 25th anniversary

M.91.164.1

156

T he appearance of The Great Oak, on an easel in the
lower left of Interior of a Picture Gallery Showing
the Collection of Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (fig.

25.1), a monumental painting dated 1749 by the Italian artist
Giovanni Paolo Panini (1691-1765), is the earliest record
of a painting by Jacob van Ruisdael in an Italian collection. 1
Van Ruisdael's name was not, however, associated with the
painting until the early nineteenth century. The posthu¬
mous inventory of the cardinal's collection compiled in
1756-63, as well as the subsequent sale of the collection in
Amsterdam in May 1763, records the Carter painting as
a work by Nicolaes Berchem, who was better known and
appreciated than Van Ruisdael during the eighteenth
century. 2 The sale catalogues in 1809 and 1834 were the first
to identify Van Ruisdael as the painter of the landscape
with figures by Berchem. In 1835 John Smith, followed by
Cornelis Hofstede de Groot and Jacob Rosenberg, noted that
the painting is signed by both artists. Although today only
Van Ruisdael's signature is visible. The Great Oak is recog¬
nized as a collaborative work by Van Ruisdael and his friend
and traveling companion Berchem, painted in 1652, shortly
after they returned from travels together near the Dutch-
German border. 1

Van Ruisdael's depiction of two roads emerging from
the forest and meeting in the foreground recalls the dense
forest landscapes of Gillis van Coninxloo (1544-1607)
and David Vinckboons (1576-ca. 1629), Flemish refugees
who settled in Amsterdam in the 1590s. In Van Ruisdael's
hands, however, the forest breaks open and secondary trees
are reduced in stature, highlighting the massive oak tree.

Its upper branches blasted by the weather, the tree tena¬
ciously clings by its roots to the sand, which appears like
a scar in the scrub-covered dune. Strong light accentuates
the wedge-shaped area of sand at the base of the tree
and draws attention to the foreground, where the two roads
converge. Patches of light animate the landscape, illuminat¬
ing important details and leading the eye through the
trees into the distance, where, on the left, the flat landscape
stretches across open meadows.

Infrared reflectography suggests that Van Ruisdael
originally planned to animate the landscape with his
own figures: a man wearing a broad-brimmed hat and carry¬
ing a walking stick over his left shoulder lies beneath the
figure of the rider (see Technical Report). His posture and
open stride show that he is walking on the road toward
the distance, where a smaller figure is still visible in the final
painting. Similar to the staffage painted by Van Ruisdael
in View of Grainfields with a Distant Town (see cat. no. 26), here
his original figures are absorbed by the landscape, whereas
those painted by Berchem play a prominent role both com-
positionally and thematically. The way in which Berchem's
figures are strategically placed to indicate movement
through the landscape points to the influence of Jan Both

(see cat. no. 5), whose landscapes had a major impact on
Dutch artists after he returned from Italy in 1642. Cast in
strong light and defined with quick brushstrokes that
capture the effect of shifting light and movement, Berchem's
figures appear to move forward to the point where, literally,
their paths will cross. The shadows cast by the figures are
inconsistent with those of the trees, indicating that Berchem
added the figures after Van Ruisdael had completed his work.

The Great Oak is one of Van Ruisdael's most successful
treatment of compositions in which he exalts and monu¬
mentalizes trees. He first experimented with the basic
format in the 1640s. The Carter painting is in many ways
anticipated by his etching The Three Oaks, dated 1649 (Rijks-
museum, Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-OB-4866), in which
three trees stand together on a dune silhouetted against
the sky, dwarfing the wooded area in the left distance. Van
Ruisdael's fascination with the picturesque qualities of
twisted and gnarled trees, such as his closely related etch¬
ing The Great Beech (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no.
RP-P-OB-4861), was probably inspired by Van Coninxloo
and especially Roelandt Savery (1576-1639), but his individ¬
ualized definition of specific specimens—the rich varied
coloring and layering of the foliage—and their monumen-
tality set him apart. 1

Scholars have generally related Van Ruisdael's fasci¬
nation with the heroic, and especially the blasted tree,
to the mutability of nature and its association with the tran¬
sience of human life. 5 In discussing The Great Oak, previous
authors have posited, furthermore, that the prominent
position of bones at the intersection of the two roads is
a reminder of the transience of earthly life and “a reference
to the destination to which all roads ultimately lead, death.'' 6
Van Ruisdael and Berchem, they suggest, may have been
alluding to the two different paths of life, rural and urban,
peasant and gentry, and intended the travelers to be under¬
stood in terms of the medieval concept of the pilgrimage
of life. 7

Rather than an allegorical reference to transience and
vanitas, however. Van Ruisdael's depiction of the weathered
oak clinging to the earth may have been inspired by a more
positive, and personal, reference. Raised in Haarlem, he
would have been keenly aware of the civic remembrance of
the destruction of the beloved Haarlem Woods during
the siege by Spanish troops in 1572-73, which prompted the
redesign of the city's coat of arms. Following the siege,
the city replaced the flourishing oak tree at the center of
its crest with a bare tree and added the motto “Vicit vim
virtus''—Virtue conquers power—a reference to the virtue,
diligence, and industry that allowed Haarlem to survive the
disasters of war and eventually to prosper. The introductory
poem to Harlemias, the history of the city of Haarlem
published in 1647-48 at the end of the Eighty Years' War by
Theodor Schrevelius (1572-1649), the rector of the local

157

Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak

Latin School, testifies to the lingering association. Schrevelius
compares the strength of the citizens of Haarlem, who
had grown steadfast through suffering, to the bare tree,
which, through resisting the storms in the open field,
had developed a stronger root system so as to be more firmly
established in the earth. 8 Thus, without being read as an
allegory, the heroic tree, like the ruins of Bredero and Kleef,
may have alluded to the history not only of Haarlem but
also of the Netherlands, which triumphed over the Spanish
through virtue and tenacity.

In the context of the historical significance of the
heroic oak, the activity and identity of the different figures
portrayed by Berchem, undoubtedly in discussion with
Van Ruisdael, should be reconsidered. The elegant rider,
a rifle and pistol strapped to his saddle, his dog on the road
ahead of him, is a hunter who has encountered the travelers
along the road. Hunting was considered a peacetime activ¬
ity that prepared men for war. The man to whom the hunter
speaks is a ragtag soldier, one of the many mercenaries
who were left far from home after the end of the war in 1648.
Carrying his bedroll under his arm, he has a sword and
helmet that suggest he may have been an officer, or, perhaps
more likely, he acquired the items as souvenirs. The second
man walking through the water wears a floppy hat and
carries a pack, as does the man with the bright red jacket
resting in the foreground, indicating that they, too,
are traveling. The dress and bare feet of the shepherds who
suddenly encounter the travelers show them not to be
Dutch. Rather, they resemble the peasants that Berchem
typically portrayed in his Italianate landscapes. The position

of the sheep and the shepherdess's pointing gesture indi¬
cate their intention to make a turn around the tree and
follow the road from which the travelers have just come.
The startled gesture of the shepherd, who grabs his pole,
reveals that they fear the travelers, who could be, as they
often were, dangerous highwaymen, displaced people and
robbers who wandered the countryside following the
cessation of the Eighty Years' War in 1648. The meeting of
the idyllic world of the arcadian shepherds and that of
the former soldiers released from duty beneath the blasted
oak tree could thus be considered a statement of resilience
and survival, the end of war, and the arrival, or hope,
of peace. Peace, however, was to be elusive. The date of the
painting, 1652, marked the start of the First Anglo-Dutch
War, a war fought by sea.

Compositionally, The Great Oak anticipates the loose,
decorative paintings from the early 1660s of Van Ruisdael
and his follower Meindert Hobbema (see cat. nos. 15,16). Van
Ruisdael's Wooded Landscape with a Pool from the mid-i6sos
(Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no. M.1969.33.P)
already shows the direction in which he was moving: viewed
from a greater distance, the major tree group is diminished
in scale, and the secondary group of trees pushed into
the left distance provides a broader opening through which
a flock of sheep passes along a deeply rutted road toward
the foreground. Typical of his later paintings, and those by
Hobbema, the light in the Pasadena painting breaks
through the open, feathery foliage of the trees to produce
a more decorative effect than in The Great Oak, which tri¬
umphs because of its strong compositional structure and
dramatic lighting.

158

Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak

Fig. 25.1

Fig. 25.1 Giovanni Paolo Panini (Italy, 1691-1765),
Interior of a Picture Gallery Showing the Collection of
Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga, 1749. Oil on canvas,

78 x 105 Vz in. (198.2 x 268 cm). Wadsworth Atheneum
Museum of Art, Hartford, The Ella Gallup Sumner
and Mary Catlin Sumner Collection Fund (inv. no.
1948.478)

159

Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR25.1 X-radiograph showing the original
dimensions and stitching, both marked, and
scallops

The support is a plain-weave, medium-
weight fabric lined with an aqueous
adhesive to a similar type fabric. Origi¬
nal tacking margins no longer exist.
Along the perimeter of the painting
there are a number of minor losses
of fabric and paint, and about Vz inch of
each of the lower corners is missing.

The X-radiograph provided some useful
information about the supports (fig.
TR25.1). First, the current stretcher is
about Va inch larger than the painting
on each side. Some of the lining can¬
vas that extends along the perimeter of
the painting is filled and painted.
Second, there are scallops on the sides of
the original support. Finally, slanted
stitching runs along the top and bot¬
tom edges of the original support,
which was perhaps intended to mend
weakened margins.

The canvas has a light pink ground.
Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed
no underdrawing; however, a penti-
mento of a male figure under the central
horseman was found (fig. TR25.2). The
figure appears to be both underdrawn
and painted. The figure is stylistically

similar to a man with a staff that Van
Ruisdael painted in View of Grainfields
with a Distant Town (cat. no. 26), only
here the figure is reversed. The more
articulated figures of the shepherds on
the right by Nicolaes Berchem were
painted directly over the completed
landscape. The IRR shows a curving
trail of bushes that were already in place
before Berchem painted the shepherds
on top.

Paints range from the thick and pasty
light colors of the clouds to thin,
transparent greens and browns in the
landscape. Van Ruisdael apparently
indicated the landscape with thin dark
paint and then painted the sky around
it. The paint for the distant hills on
the left contains azurite, among other
pigments, and it was applied with
horizontal brushstrokes. The pond was
laid in with a light cool gray that was
glazed with various colors. He laid
in the trunks and limbs of many of the
trees with dark brown paint and then
painted the bark with light gray
and brown tones. In IRR, the light gray
highlights of the trees appear very black,
indicating the presence of carbon black.
The trunk of the great oak was laid
in with a thin gray layer directly on the

pink ground. Some greenery, for exam¬
ple the grass on the hill behind the
two figures on the right, appears very
dark in IRR—again because of the
presence of carbon-black pigment.

The paint of the foliage contains
the pigments azurite, earth colors, and
possibly some lead-tin yellow and
copper resinate. The surface layers of
the tree foliage are composed of indi¬
vidual strokes and dabs of thick paint.
The X-radiograph reveals large daubs
of dense paint applied within the trees
to represent the bright sky showing
through the foliage, which partially
covers these marks. The bright green
foliage of the trees in the background
above the pond and in the middle
ground on the right side contains lead-
tin yellow pigment, which was also
used in the bundled grain at the right. 1

The clouds and the blue sky were painted
next to each other over the pink ground.
The opaque light blue paint of the sky
is a single layer with open brushwork;
a stiff brush left grooves in the paint. The
clouds were energetically painted with

160

Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak

Fig. TR25.2 Detail of pentimento under horseman:
a man carrying a staff walks away from the viewer.
The figure is similar to that in View of Grainfields with
a Distant Town (cat. no. 26), only reversed.

Fig. TR25.3 Digital micrograph (loox magnifica¬
tion) of the sky seen through the trees above the
horizon, just left of center, showing the first layer of
sky containing blue and white particles. A very thin,
translucent layer of gray containing black and white
particles is on top.

large brushes. Some of the darker paints
have texture from being built up with
small brushes.

The artist developed the clouds with
white- to gray-colored paints. Glazes
and scumbles, containing the pigments
smalt (gray and bright blue in color),
carbon black, and ocher create the
optical grays that subtly add form. The
gray cloud at the upper left was laid
in with a gray layer containing gray
smalt mixed with white and other pig¬
ments. The gray layer was then glazed
and scumbled. The light gray sky
seen through the trees beyond the road
was similarly laid in with a layer of
paint containing smalt and white pig¬
ments, then scumbled with gray paint,
containing a mixture of mainly black
and white pigments (fig. TR25.3).

Berchem painted the figures on top of
the painted landscape by first defining
them with fine outlines in dark paint
that show in IRR.

The painting has a visible crackle pat¬
tern. On the left side above the center,
several large arcs and circular cracks

may have been caused by a blow to this
area, which also has numerous small
losses of paint. Along the perimeter of
the painting there are faint stretcher
marks about 1 Vz to 2 inches from
the edges caused by a previous stretcher.

The picture reads well, retains some
surface texture, and preserves the rich,
dark colors of the foliage. There is
general abrasion to the surface, espe¬
cially affecting the thinner glazes or
scumbles in the sky and the medium-
rich colors of the foliage. The painted
surface has some weave interference
probably from the lining.

The signature and date, painted with
a very dark paint over the dried paint of
the road, are in a good state with no
reinforcement. However, there is some
superficial abrasion, and the third digit
of the date is difficult to read.

Ultraviolet light showed an early var¬
nish, which fluoresces greenish-yellow
(probably a natural resin), that was
thinned in various areas of the land¬
scape and sky. Toning hides abrasions in
the sky but also covers some original
paint. Ultraviolet light showed some

161

Van Ruisdael and Berchem, The Great Oak

strengthening of the figures and sheep
but little restoration in the trees and
landscape.

Robert Shepherd cleaned the painting
in 1984. His report states that the
painting had been recently lined and
cleaned by someone who removed
a great deal of overpaint from the sky,
which, judging from earlier photo¬
graphs, had been done in the late
eighteenth or early nineteenth century
to give the picture a "brooding, roman¬
tic mood.” 2 Shepherd removed more
of the old overpaint and all recent
retouching. He varnished the painting
with ketone resin to which he added
microcrystalline wax. He found the sky
"reasonably intact with some very early
varnish.” In 2000 the varnish was
thinned at LACMA to reduce discolor¬
ation and correct some discolored
retouching. The painting was varnished
with a natural resin varnish.

NOTES

1 DeCristofaro et al. 1982.

2 Van Ruisdael object file. Department of Paintings
Conservation, LACMA.

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Jacob Isaacksz.
van Ruisdael

(1628/29-1682)

View of Graillfields Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

with a Distant Town , 1 ca. 1670 M 20 ° 9 * 106 * 12

Oil on canvas, 20 14 x 25 Vz in.

(51.4x64.8 cm)

Signed lower left: JVRuisdael

162

A lone man with a pole over his shoulder walks in
the shadows along the edge of a newly harvested
field of grain as two dogs frolic nearby. In the
distance a man stacks hay. The figures, which are absorbed
by the landscape, are typical of those painted by Jacob van
Ruisdael himself, in contrast to those by Nicolaes Berchem
in The Great Oak (cat. no. 25). Here the major protagonist
of the composition is not humanity but the sky, which occu¬
pies more than half of the canvas. The seemingly arbitrary
distribution of light across the landscape suggests the
movement of the large clouds rushing over the land. As in
his contemporary views of the bleaching fields of Haarlem,
however. Van Ruisdael uses light to select significant details,
emphasizing the diagonal line of the simple wood foot¬
bridge in the foreground, the large yellow trapezoid of the
unharvested field, and the stacked sheaves of grain. A softer
light draws attention to the distant hill beyond the dark
band of trees that cuts through the painting horizontally,
diminishing on the far right, where the church tower of
a distant town and adjacent meadows glow in the sunlight.

View of Grainfields with a Distant Town is one of Van
Ruisdael's most successful depictions of grainfields, a subject
he painted at least twenty-five times during his career. 2
Only three early grainfields from the late 1640s are dated. 3
The Carter picture probably dates about 1670, at the end of
a group of paintings that Seymour Slive places in the 1660s. 4
In common with the Carter painting, these depictions
of grainfields contrast the rough terrain of the foreground
with sunlit fields of cultivated grain in the distance. 53
In the much larger Wheat Fields, also from about 1670 (The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 14.40.623), 6
the viewer is drawn into the landscape by a rutted road that
stretches across the rugged foreground and leads back to
the country house hidden in a grove of trees. Rolling fields
of yellow grain flank the road. As in the Carter painting,
billowing clouds echo the landscape, casting shadows across
the land.

The Carter painting, however, is more subtle and yet
more clearly structured and unified than the Metropolitan's
composition. Dramatic contrasts of light and shadow,
solids and voids, near and far suggest both space and depth.
Van Ruisdael juxtaposes the geometric shape of the uncut
golden grain glowing in the sunlight and the rows of bound
sheaves that form a strong diagonal leading into the
distance. 7 Meanwhile, the man walking toward the left in the
foreground creates a subtle counterbalance to the dominant
diagonal and both anchors and expands the composition
that seems to be just a slice of a limitless landscape.

In View of Grainfields with a Distant Town, as in his other
paintings of grainfields. Van Ruisdael emphasizes the
contrast between cultivated fields and untamed nature by

employing different painting techniques: painterly brush¬
strokes ( schilderachtig ) for the rough brush in shadow in the
foreground; and more refined brushwork for the distant,
sunlit fields and the sky. In doing so, he seems to celebrate
the widely admired ability of the Netherlands to transform
barren land into productive fields by employing advanced
garden and farming practices, including crop rotation, to
improve the quality of the land. In 1645 Sir Richard Weston
(1591-1651), an English canal builder and agriculturalist
who had studied Flemish farming practices, wrote in
the introduction to his book Brabant-Husbandry, “The whole
Discourse shews you, how to improve barren and healthy
land, and how to raise more than ordinary profit thereof... .'' 8

The ability to transform barren land into productive
fields and gardens was also a popular theme in Dutch
literature, not surprising for a country largely reclaimed
from the sea. The establishment of peace with Spain had,
moreover, meant that fields left fallow during the war were
again productive. Poets praised the ability of agriculture to
tame nature and transform wilderness into fertile land.

In his garden poem on the country estate of Duinrel near
The Hague, Coenraad Droste (1642-1734) wrote, “Nature
can be given a different essence / If one is trained in the
application of agriculture: / Wilderness can be turned into
useful and fertile land.'' 9 By the late seventeenth century,
Dutch gardeners actually incorporated rustic elements into
their garden designs to emphasize the ability of the gar¬
dener to transform barren land. After purchasing Sorgvliet,
the former country estate of Jacob Cats (1577-1660), who
immortalized it in a poem, Hans Willem Bentinck (1649-
1709), Earl of Portland and confidant of William III, trans¬
formed and expanded the estate's garden. He introduced
formal French garden design but also incorporated the
surrounding dense wilderness, including a brook. 10 Johan
Maurits van Nassau-Siegen (1604-1679), who wrote a list of
suggestions regarding the extension, protection, and
embellishment of the grounds of Sorgvliet in 1674, shared
Bentinck's appreciation for rustic nature: “The most beau¬
tiful and rarest sight in Holland is to have a lively rivulet.
One should let this run its own natural course... crooked as
it may be, since straight lines are not always pleasant.'' 0

Van Ruisdael's View of Grainfields with a Distant Town, in
which the sun illuminates the golden meadows and sheaves
of wheat while leaving untamed nature in the shadows,
celebrates the transformation of the land into productive
fields. Like the paintings of cattle grazing by Paulus Potter
(1625-1654) and Aelbert Cuyp (1620-1691), it ultimately
celebrates the Dutch agricultural industry. 12

163

Van Ruisdael, View of Grainfields with a Distant Town

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR26.1 In the X-radiograph, the strip of
original paint that had been previously folded over a
stretcher is indicated in red. Cusping in the canvas is
indicated in green. The white areas through the
center of the painting are paint losses that have been
filled and inpainted.

The support is a tightly woven, medium-
weight canvas lined to a similar fabric
with an aqueous adhesive. Tacking
margins have been removed. The origi¬
nal canvas does not extend to the edges
of the stretcher on the right and bot¬
tom, where it is about 14 inch short of
the stretcher edge. The space has been
filled with a white material and painted
to continue the design. Only the bottom
and left side of the original canvas have
noticeable scallops.

About 1 inch into the painting along the
left edge there is a vertical line or crease
(fig. TR26.1). The paint in this strip of
original fabric is damaged and restored.
There is paint loss in the lower 6 inches
of the strip and several smaller losses

above it. The crease could have been
created if the strip of painting had
been turned over a smaller stretcher at
one time but then in a later restoration
folded out and restored.

The canvas has a thin reddish ground
with a gray (or possibly white) ground
of medium thickness on top. No
underdrawing was found with infrared
reflectography (IRR). Paints range from
thick, opaque light colors with evident
brushstrokes and low impasto in the
clouds to transparent dark colors in the
foreground shadows. The sky has two
layers of paint. A light blue paint, which
contains mostly dark, cool blue smalt
and lead-white pigments, was painted
directly on the ground. Paint contain¬
ing bright blue smalt mixed with white
was applied on top, approximately
around the forms of the clouds. Thin
films of orange and pink paints

containing ocher pigments on the light
blue paint layer create the gray grada¬
tions of the clouds. More white pigment
was added for the lighter grays and
cream colors. The X-radiograph shows
energetic brushwork in the clouds that
was accomplished with medium-size
brushes, smaller than those Van Ruisdael
used in The Great Oak (cat. no. 25).

As he did in The Great Oak , Van Ruisdael
here rendered the landscape, espe¬
cially the areas of shadow, with dark,
translucent paint. Azurite pigments
were employed throughout the land¬
scape. Lead-tin yellow gives the wheat
and the green hilltop intensity and
brightness. The shadowed sides of the
haystacks are basically the dark

164

Van Ruisdael, View of Grainfields with a Distant Town

Fig. TR26.2 Infrared reflectogram

underlayer. Figures and landscape
details were painted over the painted
landscape.

Van Ruisdael painted the trees directly
with fluid paint and narrow brushes
over the initial lay-in of the landscape
and on top of the sky. As in The Great
Oak, some of the tree trunks, limbs, and
branches appear dark in IRR because of
the concentration of carbon black in the
gray paint used for these parts of the
tree (fig. TR26.2).

The artist signed with a dark paint over
the dry paint of the landscape.

A medium crackle pattern runs through¬
out the painting, and some stretcher
marks are visible. The X-radiograph
reveals a number of losses of paint and
ground. The most significant losses
have narrow, irregular, elongated shapes.
These are located particularly in part
of the sky and in the central landscape.

A horizontal loss in the billowing cloud
measures about 3 inches long, and
several other losses around it range
from about Vz to iVz inches long.

A narrow horizontal loss about 6 inches
long runs along the upper part of
the wheatfield. Some of the restoration
of these losses covers original paint.

The surface of the painting has some
abrasion. There is also some abrasion of
the signature, but it has not been
enhanced and is legible. The J in the
first part of the monogram of the
signature is very indistinct. The varnish
appears fairly thick in ultraviolet light
and fluoresces a milky green-blue,
while restorations show up as soft peach
in color.

165

Van Ruisdael, View of Grainfields with a Distant Town

Salomon van Ruysdael

(1600/1603-1670)

River Landscape with a Ferry , 1650

Oil on wood, 20 14 x 32% in.

(52.1 x 83.5 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.13

Provenance

Signed and dated lower left, on ferry:

Exhibitions

S-VRUYSDAEL-1650

References

166

S alomon van RuysdaeFs river landscapes are among his
most beautiful and recognizable paintings. Dated
1650, River Landscape with a Ferry is a mature work and
one of Van RuysdaeFs most successful variants on the theme
he introduced in the 1630s and perfected during the late
1640s and 1650s. Typical of his mature paintings, in the
Carter painting a new stateliness combining major vertical
elements and strong accents of color and light replaces
the earlier emphasis on a diagonally receding shoreline and
tonal palette of browns, ochers, greens, and soft blues thinly
applied with additional glazes (Hamburger Kunsthalle,
Hamburg, inv. no. 627). As in his earlier river landscapes,
however, the foreground is occupied by a broad expanse of
water cast in shadow. Silhouetted against the light-colored
water in the middle distance, a ferryboat loaded with cattle
and passengers glides across the smooth surface of the river
parallel to the distant horizon. By remaining below the
horizon line, the boat yields to the landscape. To the right
an unidentified church is nestled behind a massive stand of
trees that clings to the shore of the river. The tall, feathery
trees arching over the water and reaching up to the sky form
a strong vertical element that anchors the composition.

A steep visual diagonal, extending from the top of the trees
to a sailboat listing in the wind on the far left, connects the
foreground to the distance.

By interrupting the continuous diagonal shoreline
that is typical of his river landscapes from the 1630s,

Van Ruysdael increases the impression of depth. Here the
river winds back behind the trees, reappearing where
the soft pastel colors and looser brushwork define detail and
suggest the reflection of the setting sun. The boathouse
elevated above the water on stilts, the man in the small row¬
boat, and the ferry form a subtle, but effective, transition
between the light-filled distance and the darker foreground,
where glazes mix with pigment to create the translucent
effect of the river and suggest the reflections of the trees.
Typical of his mature paintings, here Van Ruysdael firmly

draws thick, colorful paint across the sky, leaving visible
brushstrokes that emphasize the horizon and contrast with
the loose, spirited description of the shore and the soft
billowing clouds that animate the thinly painted blue sky.

Van Ruysdael introduced the motif of a ferryboat
loaded with cattle and passengers placed parallel to the
picture plane as if crossing a river in 1631 (The National
Gallery, London, on loan from the Victoria and Albert
Museum, inv. no. L1114), 1 probably inspired by the 1622
painting The Cattle Ferry (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no.
SK-A-1293) by Esaias van de Velde (see cat. no. 31). The
ferryboat became a dominant theme and compositional
device in Van RuysdaeFs mature paintings after 1650.

A common sight in the Netherlands during the seventeenth
century, these flat-bottomed boats were used to transport
people and animals, as well as coaches, across inland
waterways. They were an important part of the elaborate
transportation system that connected Dutch cities along
the rivers, canals, and roads. 2 As demonstrated in this
painting, ferries were propelled by a man who stood at the
stern of the flat-bottomed boat and pushed into the shallow
riverbed with a long pole. Another man would control
the forward movement with a rope anchored to a tree on
the opposite shore.

The ferry is a particularly effective compositional
device in the Carter painting. In River Landscape with Ferry
Boat, also from 1650 (Harold Samuel Collection, Guildhall
Art Gallery, City of London, inv. no. 3760), a ferry appears
against the wooded shore that extends almost three-quarters
across the width of the panel. In the Carter painting, how¬
ever, where the shore reaches only halfway across the panel,
the ferry, silhouetted against the sunlit river, contributes
to the classically balanced composition that evokes a feeling
of quiet serenity, characteristic of the paintings collected
by the Carters.

167

Van Ruysdael, River Landscape with a Ferry

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR27.1 Reverse of the panel
Fig. TR27.2 Infrared reflectogram

The panel, approximately Va inch thick
and beveled, is composed of two boards.
The top board is 9% inches wide and
the bottom, 11 Vs inches wide. The join is
now strengthened with a canvas strip
adhered on the reverse (fig. TR27.1).
Strips of wood approximately Va inch
wide have been added to all four sides.

The infrared reflectogram (IRR) was
clear and sharp with good contrast
between the bright, IR-reflective ground
and the dark, absorbing underdrawing
(fig. TR27.2). 1 There is a surprising
amount of underdrawing in this paint¬
ing, found mainly in the figures on
the ferry but also throughout the land¬
scape. The IRR revealed lines that
are all fairly fine and dark. The appear¬
ance of these lines is characteristic of
a brush application: the lines have a uni¬
formly solid density and waver slightly
in width, with more pigmented medium
at the beginning of the brushstroke.

At first it was thought that the under¬
drawing visible in IRR was the dark
brown, brushed outlines of the figures
visible in normal light. However,

when the IR reflectogram was super¬
imposed with a high-resolution colored
image of the painting, most of these
brown outlines disappeared. Closer
examination with the digital micro¬
scope revealed that the dark outlines
found in the IRR corresponded instead
with light gray, brushed outlines that
are barely visible in the colored image
and normal light. It is the carbon-black
pigment in the light gray that makes
the underdrawing dark and obvious
in IRR. The X-radiograph showed many
of these same brushed outlines to be
bright white, indicating that the gray
was a combination of carbon black,
visible only in the IRR, and lead white,
visible only in X-radiography (fig.
TR27.3).

The dark brown and pale gray outlines
are so close in position (the brown
almost on top of the gray) that it is
evident that Van Ruysdael closely
followed the initial light gray under¬
drawing. It is often thought that later
paintings by him do not contain
any underdrawing, perhaps because the
lines that show up in IRR are assumed
to be the dark brown, brushed outlines
that are clearly part of the upper paint

layers. Certainly the type of underdraw¬
ing in this painting contrasts with
the energetic, loose underdrawing found
in some of his earlier paintings; see
LACMA's Landscape with Deer Hunters
(inv. no. 52.24), which dates about 1630.
The underdrawing in this earlier
painting was determined to be graphite
or metalpoint.

It should also be noted that while some
of the gray underdrawing in the fore¬
ground of River Landscape with a Ferry is
covered with colored paint layers, other
brushed gray lines in the background
landscape (similar in character to the
lines identified as underdrawing in the
foreground) have been left fully exposed
as part of the final composition.

A thin light pinkish ground is discern¬
ible, but there may be an even thinner
white ground directly on the panel.
Paints range from thick, opaque light
colors to thin, translucent warm ones.
Painting fairly directly, Van Ruysdael
laid out the landscape and sky, leaving

168

Van Ruysdael, River Landscape with a Ferry

Fig. TR27.3 X-radiograph showing the dense lines
that appear white along the ferry and its occupants
and the tree trunks on the bank to the right that
may be part of an underpainting. Also note the
variety of brushwork.

Fig. TR27.4 Digital micrograph (50X magnification)
of blue sky to show blue pigment

obvious brushwork and low impasto.
For the blue sky he used paints con¬
taining shades of smalt applied with
open, diagonal brushstrokes so that the
warm color of the ground affects the
color of the sky (fig. TR27.4). The varied
cream, gray, and blue colors of the
clouds were applied with an interesting
array of brushwork that shows best in
the X-radiograph. Long, horizontal
strokes of thick paint lie above the
horizon, noticeable grooves left by the
bristles of the brush create fine shad¬
ows, and the contrast of pink and blue
colors produces a vibrant depth. In
contrast to the regular, horizontal
strokes of the sky and the broad han¬
dling in the clouds, Van Ruysdael
painted the sky around the trees and
buildings with smaller brushstrokes
that move in numerous directions.

The dark areas of the landscape were laid
in with thin, warm, translucent paint.
Richer, thicker translucent brown paint
makes up the deep shadows, such as
those along the bank of the river on the
right side of the painting. Reflections

of trees and of the loaded ferry were
painted with the dark paint and thin,
muted, local color.

The ferry and its passengers were
painted over the paint of the river. The
forms were then worked up with local
color and outlined with a thin line of
dark paint. With high magnification,
light gray paint can be seen peeking out
along the edges of the figures and cattle;
these exposed edges show as white in
the X-radiograph, because the paint
contains a dense pigment such as lead
white, but in IRR the paint appears
dark due to a carbon-black pigment.

The buildings were planned and
painted directly on the warm ground,
but trees in front of the architecture
were painted over the already set paint
of the buildings and landscape.

The tree foliage is composed of dabs
and short strokes of paint applied with
small brushes into the soft-to-firm

paint of the sky. The paint of the foliage
contains copper- and iron-based pig¬
ments and was worked wet-into-wet.

It is glazed at least in part with copper
resinate that is now discolored.

The painting is in very good condition,
with only light abrasion. There is a fine
crackle pattern that is not obvious. Lead
soaps developed in some of the dark
paints as they aged. The X-radiograph
shows minor paint loss along the join.
Ultraviolet light showed limited
restoration along the cracks, especially
in the right half of the picture. Other¬
wise, there are only some scattered
restorations. The varnish is even, semi¬
matte, and no longer very saturating.

It has an even fluorescence.

NOTE

1 A bandpass filter of noonm was found to give
the sharpest image with good contrast between
the bright white, IR-reflective calcium-carbonate
ground and the IR-absorbing carbon-black
underdrawing.

169

Van Ruysdael, River Landscape with a Ferry

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Salomon van Ruysdael

(1600/1603-1670)

View of the River Lek and Vianen, 1668

Oil on canvas, 22 Vz x 35% in.

(57.2 x 91.1 cm)

Signed and dated lower right: SVRuysdael 1668

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.21

170

V iew of the River Lek and Vianen, dated 1668, is one of the
last of the long series of broad views of rivers, estu¬
aries, and inland seas that Salomon van Ruysdael and
Jan van Goyen (see cat. nos. 11,12) introduced in the 1640s.
Because the horizon line lies so low, at less than one-quarter
the height of the panel, the layers of shifting clouds that
cast shadows across the landscape are the major protago¬
nists. The diagonal wedge that formed the dominant struc¬
ture of Van Ruysdael's earlier landscapes, including Landscape
with Deer Hunters, about 1631 (fig. 28.1), and River Landscape
with a Ferry (cat. no. 27), is only minimally present here.

What is retained, however, is the dark shadow across the
foreground, beyond which the light draws the eye to
the distant horizon, directed by the boats and marked by
the projections of shadow, land, and figures.

The composition of View of the River Lek and Vianen is
similar to that of Van RuysdaeTs Rhine River View nearRhenen
(fig. 28.2), which is undated but must have been executed
close in date to the Carter painting. In both works the same
sailboat appears on the left, and cattle silhouetted against
the sunlit river stand in the shallow water in the middle
distance. The Carter painting is, however, more subtle than
the Barnes landscape: rather than align the boats sailing
into the distance to indicate space, here Van Ruysdael placed
small boats on the horizon to which a bright patch of water
draws the viewer's attention.

The towers of the city of Vianen rise above the trees in
the right distance: the city's large Gothic church, one of
several clustered in the center of the town, appears on the
left. On the right, to the west, is Sint-Pol's Tower next to
Batestein Castle, the seat of the lords of Brederode, one of
the largest landowning and most powerful families in

Holland. 1 Located on the south bank of the River Lek, known
for its abundance of salmon, Vianen was a popular excur¬
sion for tourists as well as for residents of Utrecht, to which
it was connected by a canal. Writing in his journal in the
summer of 1699, an anonymous English student at the
University of Utrecht, traveling with his brother and proba¬
bly a tutor, described his visit to Vianen:

About two hours or six miles [south] from Utrecht lies
Vianen, a little sovereignty by itself. There is a little
town, walled round, and the remains of an old castle
and a dwelling house. There is a fine wood; they have
good fish out of the Lek or Rhine, which is hard by. It
is very pleasant coming from Utrecht hither by water
in the summertime. And there is a public house in
the wood where one may have good pike or carp at any
time, they keeping them always ready in a pond, so
that one may always depend on a pretty dish of fishJ

Van Ruysdael's representation of recognizable land¬
marks reflects the contemporary interest in travel and
tourism. Profiles of cities and towns (often taken from rivers)
had been popular in prints since the late sixteenth century,
but the depiction of specific places and monuments became
the primary subjects of paintings only during the second
quarter of the seventeenth century, especially after the
end of the Eighty Years' War in 1648. The introduction of
these subjects also coincided with the expansion of a net¬
work of canals and rivers that facilitated travel and tourism
throughout the country. Typically, as here, the paintings
portray the city and its major monuments accurately,
but the landscape setting is usually a fantasy. 3 The angle

171

Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen

from which Vianen is represented emphasizes the distinc¬
tive square tower of Sint-Pol. The view, which is very close to
that published by Abraham Rademaker in 1725 based on
a drawing of 1630, is from the perspective of the canal coming
from Utrecht, which Rademaker noted offered particularly
nice views of the town of Vianen. 4 It is possible to imagine
the boat on the left entering the river from the canal. How¬
ever, the landscape, while suggestive of Vianehs setting,
cannot be reconciled with the actual river that curves
around the town, flowing north and then south as it contin¬
ues west. The prevailing winds and setting sun, which
should come from the west, furthermore, are represented
here as coming from the left, the east.

Van Ruysdael animated the composition with staffage
that not only complements the major lines of the landscape
but also suggests the activity on the river and the founda¬
tions of the Dutch economy: fishing, transport, and cattle.
In the shallows of the middle distance, three men strain
to haul in a seine net, which was hung vertically and drawn
through the water from the riverbank to capture fish.

Nearby, cattle have wandered down from the polders for
a drink in the shallows of the river. The Lek is a continuation
of the Nederrijn (Lower Rhine) and thus was part of a major
transport route from the Rhine to Rotterdam, where it
becomes the Nieuwe Maas River and ultimately flows to the
sea. The broad hull of the sailboat indicates that it was used
on inland rivers, probably part of the elaborate beurtveer
network used to transport passengers and cargo between
cities. 5 The tent fixed to one of the two boats beached in the
center right suggests that it may have been used to trans¬
port passengers locally. 6]

Van Ruysdael portrayed several towns along the River
Lek, including Rhenen, the official residence of Frederick V
(1596-1632), elector Palatine, and Elizabeth Stuart (1596-
1662), the so-called Winter King and Queen, suggesting that
he, like Van Goyen, traveled along the river recording his
impressions firsthand. Unlike Van Goyen, who was a prolific
draftsman, however. Van Ruysdael left no drawings that can
be securely attributed to him, indicating that he may have
relied on topographical drawings or prints by other artists.

172

Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen

Fig. 28.1

Fig. 28.2

Fig. 28.1 Salomon van Ruysdael, Landscape with Deer
Hunters, ca. 1631. Oil on wood, 29 x 43.5 in.

(73.7 x 110.5 cm). Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Adele S. Browning Memorial Collection, donated by
Mildred Browning Green and Judge Lucius Peyton
Green (inv. no. 52.24)

Fig. 28.2 Salomon van Ruysdael, Rhine River View
nearRhenen, ca. 1660-65. Oil on wood panel,

14.8 x 24.4 in. (37.5 x 62 cm). The Barnes Foundation,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (inv. no. BF808)

173

Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen

TECHNICAL

REPORT

The plain-weave, medium-weight canvas
support is lined to a similar fabric with
an aqueous adhesive. Tacking margins
have been removed. Cusping can be
seen on the left and right sides of the
original support. The stretcher is a little
larger than the painting.

The canvas has a light pinkish ground
(fig. TR28.1). Infrared reflectography
(IRR) showed many dark lines through¬
out the composition (fig. TR28.2).
However, it is difficult to say with
certainty that these are actually under¬
drawn, as many of the lines are also
visible in normal light. Van Ruysdael
may have been incorporating cursory
underdrawn lines into his painting,
allowing them to be visible as part of
the composition.

Paints range from light opaque and
pasty to thinner, medium-rich darks.
Comparatively loose brushwork is
visible in the sky. In the X-radiograph
long, horizontal brushstrokes are
visible at the horizon.

The blue paint of the sky, a mixture
including smalt with lead white, was
applied over the ground. For the
gray clouds, the artist glazed reddish to
orange colors (ocher pigments) on the
blue paint of the sky, and for the light¬
est clouds, he used mixtures containing
large portions of lead white. The water
was treated in much the same way.

The foreground landscape was laid in
with a tan-colored layer of paint, over
which the darks were applied rather
thickly in some instances. The sandbar
is a mixture of white, blue (smalt),
yellow, and red pigments; copper- and
iron-based pigments were used for the
green colors in the landscape.

The ships, figures, and cows were
painted after the landscape was well
under way, but some forms were
painted into the sky paint while it was
barely set, for example the flag of the
sailboat in the foreground. Red lake
mixed with azurite pigments was used
for the paint of the flag. The figures
are composed of a few well-placed
strokes of paint of various colors over
the landscape paint (fig. TR28.3).

The painting is in good condition. The
lining flattened the paint to some
degree. There is a mechanical crackle
pattern of medium size; it is somewhat
noticeable because the edges of the
cracks are lifted and old varnish in the
crevices appears dark. There are two
diagonal cracks at the lower right.
Stretcher-bar marks are faint but visible

174

Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen

Fig. TR28.3 Detail of head of man pulling net in the
central mid-ground showing the strokes of paint in
the man’s face

on the top and on the right side (about
1 inch into the picture) as well as at
the center, where the bars crossed. The
upper right corner has restoration
smeared over the surface, perhaps to
hide cracks and abrasion. Ultraviolet
light reveals restoration of many cracks,
including some along the edges.

The signature, which lies below a fluo¬
rescing varnish, appears to be done with
a dark green-brown paint. It is abraded
and toned but partly readable. The
painting was saturated with a natural
resin varnish, and old restorations were
corrected at LACMA in 1988.

175

Van Ruysdael, View of the River Lek and Vianen

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Pieter J ansz. Saenredam Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk,

(1597—1665) Utrecht, 1651

Oil on wood, 19% x 14 Vs in.
(48.6x35.9 cm)

Signed and dated lower right, on the plinth:
P.r Saenredam fecit AN 1651

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.2

176

J nterior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht is a masterpiece of
understatement. Focusing on one of the massive piers,
Pieter Jansz. Saenredam chose an oblique view of
the east end of the north aisle. Crisp lines and deftly applied
paint restricted to a narrow range of beige and gray suggest
the flow of light and shadow that sculpt the interior of
the church, celebrating the pure forms of its architecture,
while creating an impression of tangible space.

Saenredam’s presence in Utrecht is documented by
the numerous drawings he made of churches in the city
during the summer and early autumn of 1636. In June 1636
he left his native Haarlem and traveled to Utrecht. 1 For
the next five months he sketched the city’s churches, return¬
ing to Haarlem by early November. His reason for visiting
Utrecht has been attributed to his interest in the antiquity
and beauty of the city’s churches. In their monograph on the
artist, however, Gary Schwartz and Marten Jan Bok note
Saenredam’s connections to the chapters of the Utrecht
collegiate churches and to Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687),
the Dutch statesman, poet, composer, and secretary to the
prince of Orange who had multiple ties to Utrecht and to
the Sint-Mariakerk (Saint Mary’s Church), the subject of the
Carter painting. They also note circumstantial evidence that
Huygens probably owned three paintings by Saenredam. 2

Saenredam’s activities in Utrecht can be traced by the
dates he inscribed on his drawings. For five weeks between
18 June and 25 July, he worked in the Sint-Mariakerk.
Founded by Bishop Koenraad (d. 1099) at the instigation of
Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and built between 1085
and 1150, 3 the Sint-Mariakerk was severely damaged at the
end of 1576, when artillery demolished the northwest tower
during the siege by the Spanish of nearby Vredenburg
Castle. It sustained further damage during the Eighty Years’
War with Spain (1568-1648), when it was used to billet
troops. In the seventeenth century the Sint-Mariakerk was
a collegiate church owned by the city of Utrecht and run by

the canons of the chapter of Sint Maria, an ecclesiastical
body that had survived the Reformation. 4 By 1636, when
Saenredam made his systematic study of it, the church was
in poor repair and had been stripped of its altarpieces,
sculptures, and stained glass. The church was ultimately
destroyed in the nineteenth century.

Saenredam produced at least eleven drawings of the
interior and three of the exterior of the Mariakerk. It was
only after his return to Haarlem, however, that he executed
paintings based on the drawings. Those of the Mariakerk
were the first he painted, suggesting that that church
was his primary interest. Dated 1651, the Carter painting was
not, however, executed until fifteen years after the now-
lost drawing he made on location.

The Carter panel represents the north aisle of the Sint-
Mariakerk viewed from the west looking toward the east
end of the church. Through the arches on the right can be
seen the famous choir screen built in 1543-44 after a design
by Jan van Scorel (1495-1562), a canon of the church and
a painter whom Karel van Mander (1548-1606) credited with
the introduction of Italian art to the Netherlands. Other
extant drawings and paintings indicate Saenredam’s move¬
ments within the church. 5 The date 25 July 1636 inscribed
on his drawing of the north aisle from east to west (Het
Utrechts Archief, inv. no. 28608) was probably close to the
date he would have made the preliminary drawing for the
Carter painting representing the north aisle from the west.

Saenredam’s procedure was to make a drawing on
location, recording the appearance of the building from
a particular vantage point. He then made careful measure¬
ments of the actual structure, with which he produced
an accurate construction drawing, employing distant points
and guidelines. 6 The final drawing was then blackened on
the reverse and transferred to the prepared panel with
a stylus. Only the outlines of the architectural elements were
transferred, eliminating the construction lines that helped

177

Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht

to develop the drawing. In some cases, but not in the Carter
painting, Saenredam used a grid to transfer his composition
to the panel. 7 In the process of developing the final compo¬
sition, certain elements could be eliminated. In the painting
of the transept seen from the north to south (1637; Rijks-
museum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-858), for example. Van
ScoreFs choir screen that features so prominently on the
left in the first sketch (dated 22 July 1636) has been totally
eliminated. 1

Saenredairis initial drawing of the north aisle looking
east, which would have served as the basis for the Carter
painting, has not survived. The construction drawing also
has not survived, possibly destroyed or weakened during
the process of being transferred to the panel. The only
indication of his working process is a copy of his construc¬
tion drawing made in the eighteenth century by Hendrik
Tavenier (1734-1807) (fig. 29.1). Comparison of the drawing
with the painting shows that Saenredam simplified the
composition, reducing the double stringcourse and elimi¬
nating the third niche with sculpture in the eastern apse of
the north aisle. 9 Infrared reflectography indicates, however,
that the niche was planned but never painted (see Technical
Report). Based on the evidence of the Tavenier drawing,
Saenredam apparently also rethought and elaborated the

lighting when working on the final painting. 10 In the draw¬
ing, for example, the right edge of the apse is cast in shadow,
but in the painting it appears brightly lit.

The composition in the painting differs significantly
from the Tavenier drawing. In the painting the wall on
the left and the arch that frames the aisle in the drawing
have been eliminated. The physical condition of the panel
supports the conclusion indicated by these differences
that Saenredairis finished painting was cut on the top and
left. Bevels are absent on all four sides of the panel, but
whereas paint rolls over edges of the panel on the right and
lower borders, the paint at the left and top edges of the
panel is sliced away. It is unknown whether Saenredam
himself or a later hand made this change. Without the arch,
which frames the composition in the drawing, the Carter
painting more effectively draws the viewer into the aisle,
creating a more dramatic impression of the space, which
seems to soar upward. The result is a stronger image that
reflects the changes Saenredam made in other paintings,
hinting that he himself altered the structure of the panel.
Figures of two men in eighteenth-century attire that
were added by a later artist were removed by a conservator
after the painting was sold in 1976.^

178

Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht

Fig. 29.1

Fig. 29.1 Hendrik Tavenier (1734-1807), The North
Aisle of theMariakerkin Utrecht Seen from the East,
ca. 1784. Pen and brownish-gray ink, brush and gray
ink, 2 i 7 /s xi6 Vs in. (55.7 x 41.1 cm). Royal Collections,
The Hague, The Netherlands (inv. no. MCS/223)

Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR29.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR29.2 Detail of pentimento of a third arch,
marked in red, which was underdrawn but never
painted

The panel, approximately 3 /s inch thick,
is planar except for very slight undu¬
lations. The reverse has no bevels and is
covered with brown paint, which is
rubbed and worn. The width of the panel
at the top is about Vi 6 th inch narrower
than at the bottom, and the height
of the panel on the right side is shorter
than on the left side. A wood strip
(about s /i 6 inch wide) was glued to each
side of the panel at a later date.

The lip of paint remains over part of the
bottom and right edges of the original
panel. However, the left edge is uneven
and the paint along the edge appears to
have been scored. Scoring is also visible
on the top edge. The pilaster supporting
the arch on the very left edge is just
visible; it has very little breadth and has
been mostly overpainted.

The painting appears to have a fairly
thick, light-colored ground that may be
covered with a dark gray imprimatura
or second ground. Infrared reflectogra-
phy (IRR) showed an underdrawing of
thin, sharp lines that was used to define
the architecture. Most of these lines
were left visible in the completed paint¬
ing (fig. TR29.1). The lines have the
appearance of having been made with
a graphite pencil, metalpoint, or a trans¬
fer drawing. They are even in width and
consistent in terms of darkness.

Closer examination showed that some
of the underdrawn lines are doubled,
and many have stops or gaps. These can
be characteristics of the use of a trans¬
ferred construction drawing, and
Saenredam was known for using such
a technique. 1 Drawings to be transferred
are blackened on the reverse, then
placed over the prepared painting sup¬
port, and a sharp stylus or pencil is used
to transfer the lines of the drawing to

180

Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht

the painting’s support. Double lines,
overlapping, and gaps within lines
occur during the transfer if the paper
shifts or if the artist stops and then
restarts at a different point. The
construction drawing that would have
preceded the underdrawing on this
panel may have included guidelines to
help Saenredam achieve the correct
perspective. These guidelines would not
need to be transferred, and their
absence in the painting further sup¬
ports the contention that the image was
transferred from a preparatory drawing.

IRR also revealed the pentimento of
a third arch to the right of the two inset
arches in the apse on the left side of
the painting (fig. TR29.2). This third
arch was done with sharp, thin lines,
similar to the rest of the underdrawing,
but it was not developed in paint.

Fig. TR29.3 X-radiograph

Fig. TR29.4 Detail of the column on the right
showing underdrawing, the fine lines for the sides
of the column, and thin translucent colors on the
column and its base in the roping design

X-radiography showed no additional
niche, perhaps only some denser
material that may be thicker paint with
lead-white pigment, which was possi¬
bly used to cover the rejected design
(fig- TR29.3).

In the painting stage the drawn forms
were filled in with paint. The drawn
lines, however, were left visible; for
example, the lines on either side of the
foremost column are not covered
with paint. Flat, opaque local colors
were applied first. Then, the tones
of the stone, details, and shadows were
painted over the first layer. The
yellowish color of the stone was created
with thin glazes applied on top of the
initial color. Architectural details, such
as the pink bases and the capitals of
the columns, were painted in flat local
color and then glazed for detail. Thin,
translucent colors were used, for
example, to paint the roping design on

the base of the column in the fore¬
ground (fig. TR29.4). The wood upper
part of the choir screen at right was
painted over the already set paint of the
architecture. Based on a limited scien¬
tific study of the pigments, Saenredam
appears to have used lead white,
calcium white, and earth- and copper-
based pigments in this painting.

The signature is painted with a dark
mauve paint over the dry paint of the
plinth at the base of the column. The
date is a little abraded. Ultraviolet light
showed minor retouching scattered
over much of the painting, particularly
in the upper center. There is also
restoration on the left and top edges.
The painting was revarnished with
a natural resin at LACMA in 1986.

NOTE

1 Van Heemstra 2002, pp. 75-77.

181

Saenredam, Interior of the Sint-Mariakerk, Utrecht

Adriaen van de Velde

The Beach atScheveningen, 1670

(1636-1672)

Oil on canvas, 15 Vi x 19% in.
(39-4x50.2 cm)

Provenance

Signed and dated lower left, on boat:

Exhibitions

References

A. v .Veldef/1670

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.14

182

Van de Velde, The Beach atScheveningei

A s evening draws to a close, a well-dressed couple
stands on the beach watching the sun set over
the sea, which casts long shadows across the sand.

A younger man, possibly their page, stands behind them.
The fishing boats have been pulled up on the beach, and the
fishermen—a man holding the long pole of a shrimp net
and an old man with a heavy net slung over his shoulder—
head inland. In the center a rider on horseback accompanied
by his dog and a page passes two fishermen and a woman
seated on the sand playing with a child. On the left, a young
man seated on a fish trunk twists to look out to sea as
a coach drawn by four horses races along the edge of the water
followed by a footman. Barely visible in the distant right,
swimmers cavort in the surf. 1

Rising above the dunes, the simple church tower
identifies the location of the scene depicted in Adriaen van
de Velde's small painting as the beach at Scheveningen,
a fishing village on the North Sea two miles west of The
Hague, the traditional seat of the Dutch court. Since at least
the late sixteenth century, and undoubtedly earlier,
Scheveningen has been a popular retreat for young and old,
rich and poor, who seek fresh air and relaxation away from
the congested city. In 1624 a resident of The Hague wrote
in his diary, “We... went to Scheveningen for a little sea air
and to wade in the sea, walked half an hour on the beach,
drank a pitcher [of beer] to the sheriff, and returned home at
eight o'clock.” 2 The village and its beach were also well
known to foreign visitors. In Les delices de laHollande, first
published in 1651, the French traveler Jean de Parival
referred to “the agreeable village of Scheveningen where
one goes often in parties to eat fresh fish.” 3 Contemporary
poems and songs extolled the pleasures of the beach
and the virtues of its inhabitants, who were the subject of
contemporary paintings and prints. Poets often identified
fishermen and farmers, who were said to live in har¬
mony with nature and work hard without complaint, as
exemplary for the urban dweller who had been corrupted
by wealth and privilege. Assuming the voice of a fishwife
in his poem “The Situation of a Woman from Scheveningen
Who Carries a Basket of Fish on Her Head,” the Dutch
statesman and poet Jacob Cats (1577-1660) wrote, for exam¬
ple, that although she works hard for little profit, she is
happy because she is free. 1

The attraction of the beach, economically as well as
recreationally, was evidently so strong that one of the first
paved roads in Holland was built in 1663 to take people from
The Hague through the dunes to Scheveningen. The straight,
smooth thoroughfare, paved with stone and planted with
rows of trees on either side, was commemorated in 1667 by
a long poem, De niewe zee-straet van ’s-Gravenhage op Schevening
(Sea Street from The Hague to Scheveningen), by the
statesman and poet Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687), who
had promoted and helped design its construction (fig. 30.1).

Foreigners for whom Scheveningen was a popular tourist
attraction were impressed by the new paved road—still
a rarity in Europe—noting that it had soon paid for itself
with the tolls exacted from those who traveled it to
the beach. 5 Sir Francis Child, one of the many Englishmen
to tour the Netherlands, described his impressions of
Scheveningen in 1697:

The road hither, being so very pleasant, is in an evening
frequented with many coaches, especially if it's low
water, for then you may ride for two or three leagues
on the shore, which is of a hard sand, and view the sea,
with many fishing boats always sailing up and down.
About the middle of the road is a gate at which
you must pay four and a half stuivers passage gelt
for a coach. The money arising by this toll goes to
maintain the road. 6

The Beach at Scheveningen is the last of only five beach
scenes that Van de Velde signed with his name. Michael
Robinson has suggested that he also painted another five
beach scenes for the Willem van de Velde studio and four
more in collaboration with his older brother Willem van de
Velde the Younger (1633-1707)/ In the earliest beach scenes
painted for his father's studio in about 1652, when he was
approximately sixteen, Adriaen adopted the traditional
view looking directly out to sea with only a sliver of sand in
the foreground (fig. 30.2). 8 The paintings, essentially sea¬
scapes, are striking for their stark simplicity. In each a single
fishing boat beached in the foreground is silhouetted
against the sea and sky, which dominate the composition.

In paintings executed under his own name beginning
in 1658, Adriaen turned his attention to the beach itself,
looking either north or south, usually including the distinc¬
tive tower of the church at Scheveningen. Viewed from
a distance, the activity of the beach appears dwarfed by the
enormous sky. In the earliest and largest of the group. The
Beach at Scheveningen (Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, Kassel,
inv. no. GK 374), dated 1658, the view is south along the
beach, where small groups of carefully observed figures
extend deep into the distance. A man standing on the edge
of the surf in bare feet with his trousers hiked to his knees
looks out to sea, while others walk along the beach or
play in the puddles left by the retreating surf. Suffusing the
scene with warm sunlight that casts shadows of the vividly
colored figures and also creates reflections on the wet
sand. Van de Velde captures the sensual as well as emotional
experience of the beach.

Van de Velde's evolving interest in figures as the subject,
not just the staffage, of his beach scenes distinguishes his
work from that of his brother and from the paintings he did
for the Willem van de Velde studio. In two beach paintings
executed in 1660, he draws closer to his subjects. In The

1B3

Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei

Coast near Scheveningen (Royal Collection Trust, London,
inv. no. RCIN 404802), the narrative takes place in the
foreground, where a well-dressed couple talk to a fisher¬
man who gestures toward the sea. A wagon with a roof
woven of wattles and drawn by two horses—a seventeenth-
century taxi—transports other visitors back to town, past
a one-legged beggar. In the distance a group of people looks
out to sea from the top of a dune. In the second painting
from 1660, A Nobleman's Carriage on the Beach at Scheveningen
(Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 1915), a coach drawn by six
horses and followed by footmen approaches the foreground
watched by fishermen and well-dressed visitors to the
beach. The artist drew even closer to his subject in Beach View
of 1663-65 (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 198), in which
a group of fisherfolk relax on the beach next to a lean-to;
the grouping is similar to that in his contemporary paintings
of pastoral subjects in which shepherds rest in a field with
their animals, reflecting idealized descriptions of the happy,
virtuous peasant. By placing the figures in the left fore¬
ground, silhouetted against the sky, as if viewed from close
by, the artist avoided in the Mauritshuis picture the awkward
relationships of scale and space found in the London paint¬
ing, which probably resulted from his use of individual
figure drawings and insufficient knowledge of perspective.

In the Carter painting, dated 1670, Van de Velde places
the viewer on the beach in direct relationship with the
couple in the foreground who command our attention.
Although his early problems with perspective are still

evident in the inappropriately large figure of the boy seated
on the fish trunk. Van de Velde carefully planned the com¬
position to create the impression of space in which the
viewer can imagine himself. Wagon tracks leading into the
scene cut through the sand and wind around the fish trunk
into the distance. Sharp shadows cast by the setting sun
and the broad shadows of the passing clouds help to define
the flat surface of the sand and mark the progression into the
landscape, where the darkness is interrupted by the bright
sky and reflections on the water and wet sand. The shadows
contribute to the mood of quiet contemplation.

By 1670 the motif of people standing on the beach
looking out to sea was a well-established convention that
had been introduced by Adam Willaerts (1577-1664)
and others in the early seventeenth century in paintings in
which people watch the foundering of a ship or the arrival
of the fleet, as in View of aBeach by Simon de Vlieger (see
cat. no. 34). Van de Velde had already employed the motif in
his paintings of Scheveningen now in Kassel and London,
where he positioned people on a dune looking out to sea.

In the Carter painting, as in contemporary paintings by
him Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29-1682), and others, however,
there is no particular event that has drawn people to the
beach; rather, the sea itself, the setting sun, and fresh air are
the attractions. For the viewer of Van de Velde's painting, it
is the memory of a visit to the beach that provokes pleasure
and refreshment.

184

Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei

Fig. 30.1

Fig. 30.1 Illustration from Dezee-straet Van ’s-Graven-
hage op Scheveningby Constantijn Huygens, 1667.
Double-leaf engraving. Getty Research Institute,

Los Angeles, Romeyn de Hooghe Collection (inv. no.
93-B13651)

Fig. 30.2 Adriaen van de Velde, Seascape: Mouth
of the Waal atHellevoet-Sluis, ca. 1652. Oil on wood,

9 Ys x n 3 /s in. (23 x 29 cm). Formerly in Schlossmuseum
Weimar, stolen from Schwarzburg Castle in 1945

185

Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR30.1 X-radiograph marked with the original
tacking margins marked at their initial fold-over
(the line of loss). The initial margins appear dense or
white due to fill and paint that extended the
painting to its present size.

The original canvas is a fairly fine, plain-
weave fabric with numerous irregu¬
larities, such as coarse threads. It is lined
with what appears to be a wax-resin
adhesive to a plain-weave fabric inter¬
leaved with gauze. The original tacking
edges have been turned out, filled,
and painted to extend the image. The
X-radiograph revealed tattered but
mostly intact tacking margins, lines of
loss where the margin had originally
been folded over a stretcher, and several
sets of tack holes, some near the edge of
the image (fig. TR30.1). The original
dimensions of the painting before exten¬
sions would have been approximately
1514 by 19% inches (38.7 by 49.2 cm).

The medium-thick ground has a dark
reddish color. It was difficult to deter¬
mine if any underdrawing existed
in this painting. Some faint dark lines
were found in infrared reflectography
(IRR) along the horizon and hills to
the right, where the upper paint layers

are somewhat transparent (fig. TR30.2).
Most of these lines, however, were
also visible in normal light. The upper
paint layers of the beach and the figures
are quite dark in the IRR, indicating
that they contain carbon black, effec¬
tively blocking the appearance of any
underdrawing or pentimenti beneath.
In addition, the dark reddish-brown
ground is also IR absorbing and,
as such, would not provide enough
contrast with any underdrawing to
make it visible.

The artist painted the sky with a thin
light gray layer that extends from the
top edge of the canvas to the horizon,
leaving a reserve for the steeple and,
interestingly, for the man on horseback.
The boats and the roof of the hut to the

left of the steeple were painted over
the gray paint. The blue color of the sky
comes from a bright blue paint contain¬
ing the pigment azurite that was
applied over the light gray layer. The
clouds were worked up with gray or
cream-colored paint. In the shaded parts
of the clouds, the warm ground shows
through the scumbles of lighter paints.

The landscape was painted directly
on the ground. The paint for the sand
contains ochers and lead white. The
X-radiograph and IRR revealed two
rounded forms on the left horizon that
resemble low hills.

The painting has a fine mechanical
crackle pattern with some lifting of
paint along the cracks. However, the
lining set down the cracks and flattened
the paint to some degree.

186

Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei

Fig. TR30.2 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR30.3 This well-preserved face of the man
standing at right showcases the artist’s fine ability to
paint expressive faces with a few strokes of paint.

The painting has a number of condition
issues. There is overall abrasion that
is now toned and restored. The sky and
clouds have considerable toning and
restoration, but the beach scene appears
in better condition. One can see the
artist’s abilities in the dog and some of
the other figures that are in good
condition (fig. TR30.3).

The signature and date were painted
with dark brown paint over the already
dried lighter-colored paint of the boat
at lower left. The inscription is abraded
and in part reinforced, but it is reliable.
The varnish is relatively clear, even, and
semiglossy. The surface coating fluor¬
esces a dense yellow-green and obscures
some restoration.

1B7

Adriaen van de Velde, TheBeach atScheveningei

Esaias van de Velde

(1587-1630)

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Cottages and Frozen River, 1629 Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

Oil on paper, mounted on wood, M.2009.106.15

8 % x 1314 in. (21.3 x 33.3 cm)

Signed and dated lower left: E. V. VELDE 1629

188

D ated 1629, Cottages and Frozen River is one of Esaias
van de Velde's earliest landscapes painted using
a restricted palette that mutes the local colors of
individual figures and objects and integrates the compo¬
sition within an overall atmosphere and structure. Without
actually representing snow, he suggests a cold, windy day
shrouded by dark clouds and the dim light of the winter sun.
His palette is limited to tones of reddish-brown and black
with touches of green, gray, and white. Opaque, creamy
white paint drawn sparingly over the reddish-brown under¬
paint captures the effect of the sky's reflections in the frozen
river (see Technical Report). Touches of white on the side of
the tree and fence posts hint at a recent light snow, while the
light green of the fine branches foretells the coming spring.

The winter landscapes of Van de Velde, one of the
pioneers of Dutch naturalism, share compositional charac¬
teristics with his contemporary paintings, prints, and
drawings of the dunes and rivers of Holland, which are
characterized by a low horizon and a landscape organized
according to a receding diagonal that suggests the natural
progression into depth. In Frozen Canal and Farm Buildings of
1615 (Museum der bildenden Kiinste, Leipzig, inv. no. G359),
in which the horizon is still relatively high and local colors
are still used. Van de Velde breaks the diagonal line of
buildings in the center of the composition to open the view
into the distance. There the recession of the frozen river
can be gauged by the diminishing scale of the figures, build¬
ings, and trees. The evolution of the composition is evident
in A Village in Winter, dated 1628 (private collection), 1 in
which Van de Velde again divides the composition between
a solid mass of buildings and the open sky with the motif
of a footbridge connecting the two halves of the painting.

By lowering the horizon, replacing local colors with a tonal
palette, and simplifying the diagonal organization, he pro¬
duced a more naturalistic painting.

Cottages and Frozen River, dated 1629, one year after
A Village in Winter, marks a further development in Van de
Velde's treatment of the composition. Here the rustic
buildings seem to have settled into the landscape itself;
a single tree breaks the silhouette of the buildings, marking
the upper end of a diagonal met by the steeple of the distant
church. As in his etching Farm to the Left of a Frozen River
(1614), almost half of the composition is now dedicated to
the sky. 2 On the right, the view across the ice to the distant
church tower is unimpeded. By eliminating the bridge and
other details that occupy the other paintings, he produced
a more cohesive and seemingly uncontrived composition
that relates closely to the etching. Rather than a bridge, here

the branches of denuded bushes, extending across the
center of the picture, create a subtle transition between
foreground and distance, left and right.

Van de Velde integrated his figures of ordinary country
folk into the rustic landscape, where they appear to carry
out their normal activities unselfconsciously. On the left,
a woman leans on the lower half of the door, and a dog
barks as a man with a walking stick and basket returns to
the cottage, where a ramshackle outhouse is precariously
positioned on the edge of the river. On the ice at the right,
a man in a red jacket leans on a coif stick and listens intently
to a man with a sled filled with kindling wood. 3 Behind
them, figures walk into the distance as a man skates for¬
ward, balancing a long stick on his shoulder in case he should
fall through the ice. Like the landscape itself, the figures
appear to be an arbitrary slice of a larger reality.

Typical of seventeenth-century artists. Van de Velde
derived many of the motifs for his winter scenes from
the medieval manuscript and print tradition of portraying
series of the seasons or months. He did so, however, without
allegorical purpose in the Carter painting, which has no
related companion piece. 4 In 1629, the year he dated the
Carter painting. Van de Velde produced a series of drawings
of the twelve months, which represent the parallel continu¬
ation of the older tradition in the minor arts. 5 Judging from
the many paintings of the local Dutch countryside in winter
by Van de Velde, Hendrik Avercamp (see cat. no. 1), Aert
van der Neer (see cat. no. 20), Jan van Goyen (1596-1656),
and others, many of whom were influenced by the example
of Pieter Bruegel the Elder (ca. 1525-1569), there was a popu¬
lar market for them in the seventeenth century.

It is tempting to assign some of the appeal of these
pieces to the unusually cold winters that northwestern
Europe experienced beginning in the winter of 1564-65 and
lasting until the mid-nineteenth century. The so-called
Little Ice Age was a period of extremes, during which there
were both very cold and mild winters and long periods of
dry years alternating with wet ones. During the first quarter
of the seventeenth century, the temperatures were very low,
with bitter cold winters and heavy snow—the worst years
were around 1600,1607-8, and 1621. By the second quarter
of the seventeenth century, however, the winters were
less severe. About 1629, the year of the Carter painting, the
winters were normal to mild with little snow, possibly
explaining Van de Velde's portrayal of the bare rather than
snow-covered ground. 6

189

Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR31.1 Digital micrograph (loox magnifica¬
tion) of the frozen pond showing fibers of paper
visible through thin ground and paint layers

Fig. TR31.2 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR31.3 Digital micrograph (25X magnification)
of a section of the tree

The painting is on medium-thick laid
paper that is cream to beige in color but
has been darkened by media from paints
and varnish. The paper is mounted on
a panel that is about Va inch thick
and has no bevels. The paper support is
approximately 14 th inch shy of the
right side of the panel. The panel has
a minor horizontal convex bow.

The paper support has detached from
the panel in a number of areas, causing
small, shallow bubbles on the surface,
which are not very noticeable. There are
numerous small losses of the paper
along the edges.

The thin, light-colored ground, which
does not entirely cover the paper fibers,
has a warm appearance (fig. TR31.1). The

infrared reflectogram (IRR) suggested
many dark brushstrokes were part of
an underdrawing that was allowed to be
visible in the final composition. This
technique was found in other Dutch
landscapes in the Carter collection (fig.
TR31.2).

The painting style is direct, although
Van de Velde used opaque as well as thin
dark paints. The paint of the sky, con¬
taining at least lead white and smalt
pigments, left reserves for the landscape,
including the trunk of the tall tree and
the roofs of the buildings. His brushy
and open application allows the paper
and ground to have a presence. The
landscape was economically painted.
First he applied translucent, dark,
warm colors, and then he brushed out
light colors over the dark underpaint¬
ing to suggest the brilliant reflection of
the ice and snow.

The tops of the trees and buildings were
painted over the sky. On top of the
landscape, the figures and objects were
set in with thin dark paint that notes
form and shadows; then local color was
applied. The buildings on the left
appear to have been built up in a similar
way. However, the sunlit bell tower and
landscape on the distant right were
painted directly with local color. 1 The
bushes in the center foreground are
indicated with numerous freely painted
short arcs (fig. TR31.3). Pigments not
already mentioned include copper-
based pigments in the greens, ochers,
vermilion, and umber or green earth.

190

Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River

The X-radiograph reveals no obvious
pentimenti. The painting is in very
good condition. The crackle pattern is
not discernible. There are numerous
small areas of restoration, especially
along the horizon, which tone tiny
losses caused by flaking.

On the left side there appears to be some
general toning of the sky and smoke.
The upper part of the sky has some light
restoration that contains zinc white.

The signature was painted rather
thickly with a dark, cool reddish color.
The first two letters have some loss and
restoration, and the third digit of the
date is difficult to read.

The painting may have been cleaned in
the not too distant past, judging from
appearances. It has a transparent
varnish with appropriate saturation,
and the varnish seems to be a natural
resin, such as dammar.

NOTE

i For a discussion of the artist’s working methods
over much of his career, see Gifford 1998.

191

Esaias van de Velde, Cottages and Frozen River

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Willem van de Velde
the Younger

(1633-1707)

Beach with Fishing Boats Gift of Mrs. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

Pulled Up on Shore, ca. 1673 M.2009.106.16

Oil on wood, 12% x i 6 ls /i 6 in.

(31.4 x43 cm)

Signed lower center, on a piece of driftwood: WVV

192

W illem van de Velde the Younger evokes the

cold, windswept beaches of the North Sea with
the smooth application of subtle tones of beige,
brown, and gray paint. Reflections of light from the
shrouded sun in the foreground create the impression of
wet sand, while in the distance the sailboat propelled across
the horizon beneath scudding clouds suggests the strong
wind of the North Sea.

The compositional simplicity and intimacy of Beach
with Fishing Boats Pulled Up on Shore are striking. Turning
away from the sea itself. Van de Velde focuses on the beach.

A wooden jetty projecting into the sea and slicing across
the picture plane restricts his view to the distance. A break
in the weathered wood posts on the left, however, offers
a glimpse of the distant sea that discretely extends the per¬
ception of depth within the picture. In the shelter of the
groin, a weyschuit has been hauled onto the beach on wooden
rollers; 1 other fishing boats are moored nearby, and a skiff
has been pulled into the water. Painted in the same subtle
earth tones, the figures and boats appear to be part of the
natural landscape. In the center of the picture, two men—
one seated on the sand, the other standing and looking out
to sea—converse as a third walks along the edge of the
water with a pole over his shoulder. Almost unnoticed in the
foreground on the far right, a rowboat transports passen¬
gers to shore from a ship anchored at sea.

The naturalness of the Carter painting suggests an
arbitrary moment directly observed by someone on the
beach. Van de Velde initially recorded the scene in a graphite
and wash drawing he inscribed on the back, “voor de helder,
woonsdach den 20 Meij 1665” (before Den Helder, Wednesday,
20 May 1665) (National Maritime Museum, Greenwich,
London, inv. no. PAF6823). 2 Working in his studio perhaps
as many as eight years later, he manipulated the scene in the
drawing for the painting, strengthening and carefully
distributing the accents of light and dark. By shortening
and reinforcing the long, broken groin depicted in the
drawing, he transformed it into a dark horizontal element
that forcefully thrusts into the sea, confining his focus
and obscuring all but the masts of oceangoing ships in the
distance. He further refined and balanced the original

composition by carefully placing the rowboat and figures
on the right and the seemingly arbitrarily tossed anchor and
wood on the left side of the beach. He also adjusted the
masts of the boats on the near side of the groin so that they
tilt at different angles.

Van de Velde's inscription on the drawing identifies
the location of the scene as the view from Den Helder across
the Marsdiep to the island of Texel. The Marsdiep was
a favorite anchorage for the fleets of large merchant and
battleships seeking temporary refuge from the North Sea.
Wooden groins extending into the sea were common along
the coast of Den Helder, the northernmost point of the
Dutch mainland. Hans Buijs has convincingly suggested
that Van de Velde went to Marsdiep during the first days of
May 1665 to await the departure of the Dutch fleet for which
his father was to serve as a draftsman-reporter. 3 Under
the command of Jacob, baron van Wassenaer Obdam (1610-
1665), the fleet had assembled in preparation for the attack
on the English. It finally departed on 23 and 24 May,
confronting the English on 13 June. 4 While waiting with his
father, the younger artist made a number of drawings of the
fleet as well as scenes of the beach with small fishing vessels.

Michael Robinson has suggested that Van de Velde
painted the Carter picture in the London studio of his father
in about 1673, eight years after the initial drawing. The
somewhat chunky figures suggest that it was painted after
the 1672 death of his brother Adriaen van de Velde (see cat.
no. 30), who painted elegant staffage for many of Willem's
paintings. This later date is also supported by the inclusion
of the “double prince” ensign on the stern of the sloop.

The six-striped flag was first used by Cornelis Tromp (1629-
1691) in 1673. 5

Van de Velde depicted the same location in another
painting. Beach Scene (Fondation Custodia, Collection Frits
Lugt, Paris, inv. no. 285), which shares with the Carter
painting a similar blond tonality. 6 That painting was proba¬
bly painted earlier, closer in date to the actual event. In
comparison with the Paris picture, the Carter composition
is more focused and expresses the quiet mood that Willem's
later paintings share with those by his brother Adriaen.

193

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR32.1 Infrared reflectogram

The panel is planar. It is approximately
Va inch thick with no bevels. The height
of the left side is 14 th inch greater than
the right, and the width of the panel
is Msth inch wider at the bottom than at
the top. The reverse has been coated
with thin brown paint. The upper edge
of the panel is slightly wavy, and there is
a knot at the center of the bottom edge
with a l-inch vertical crack. There are
some insect holes, particularly along the
lower part of the panel.

A fairly thin light pink ground covers
the panel. The artist brushed in the
design and shadows with a dark paint
that infrared reflectography (IRR)
recorded (fig. TR32.1). The ground
appears very reflective in infrared, indi¬
cating that it probably contains calcium
carbonate. A number of finely brushed

lines done in gray or dark brown appear
dark in IRR but are also visible in
normal light. This makes it difficult to
confirm that they are actually under¬
drawn. However, some of these lines do
have paint applied over them. It seems
most likely that the lines are part of the
sketch or initial laying-in of the
composition and were intended to be
seen in the final painting, a technique
also noted in works by Esaias van de
Velde (cat. no. 31), Salomon van Ruysdael
(cat. nos. 27,28), and other landscape
painters in the Carter collection.

Brushstrokes from the first layers of
paint and/or from the ground applica¬
tion are visible on the paint surface. The
artist applied a thin layer of very light
bluish-gray paint containing at least the
pigments azurite and black over the
ground for the sky that may or may not
extend to some parts of the water. He
developed the clouds with white- and
gray-colored paints. The bright blue
sky, containing the blue pigment smalt
and lead white, skirts around the shapes
of the clouds.

The beach scene was brushed in with a
dark warm-colored paint that is
partially visible as part of the design.
Forms were then developed using local
color directly applied in thin to thick
applications. The warm tone beneath
can be seen in the shadow areas. Glazes
enrich the shadows. The jetty, for
example, was sketchily painted with
local color over a warm tone, intention¬
ally left visible, but perhaps more
visible today because of some abrasion
of the surface. The two figures in the
foreground at left center clearly show
this treatment as well (fig. TR32.2).

The right side of the seascape was
painted more directly with thicker paints
than the left side, probably to capture
the effect of a stronger light on the sea
and sand. The figures, boats, and sea
were painted at the same time, with the
artist working back and forth. The final

194

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

Fig. TR32.2 Detail with two men in front of boats
and jetty. A thin, dark, warm tone is perceptible
beneath the opaque local color and on top of the
pinkish ground.

Fig. TR32.3 Detail of the right side of the painting
with a man walking, showing how the whites of the
breakers are painted on either side of his head, and
his head is painted over the boat

colors of the boat, the man walking,
and the whitest crests of the waves abut
one another; however, the head of
the man was painted over the nearly
completed boat (fig. TR32.3). The beach
was painted with thin to thicker paints
containing ochers and white pigments.
The boat masts were painted with beige-
colored paint over the sky. The artist
signed with dark paint on the firm paint
of the plank lying on the beach at center.

Ultraviolet examination showed two
campaigns of restoration: over the var¬
nish, where there are numerous small
restorations in the central sky and
on the edges of the painting that appear
very dark; and beneath the varnish,
where less-obvious, small restorations
are scattered overall and include
toning of the grain of the wood. The
X-radiograph shows a 14-inch loss to
the jetty located above and to the left of
the standing man's hat. The signature
is abraded but extant; it has some dots

of reinforcement. For about Vz inch into
the painting along the right edge, the
paint was disturbed before it was firm.
This is most noticeable in the flag on
the rowboat.

The picture reads well, but discolored
varnish strongly fluoresces yellow
in ultraviolet light. The varnish does
not saturate well, and there is blanching
in the area of the blue hat, which
may have more to do with the paint
than the varnish.

195

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

Provenance

Exhibitions

References

Willem van de Velde
the Younger

(1633-1707)

and workshop

A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm, 1671 Gift of Mr - and Mrs. Edward William Carter

Oil on canvas, 131/4 x 171/4 in. M.2009.106.17

(33-7X43-8 cm)

Signed and dated lower right, on plank in water: 1
wvveldei6/i

196

H er sails and flags fluttering in a light breeze,

a yacht glides quietly toward the open sea, across
the still water of a harbor crowded with vessels.
The sharp wedge of blue slicing through the sky suggests
the departure of storm clouds that have cast the foreground
in shadow, leaving a calm sea after a brief morning shower.
On the heels of the storm, the sun floods the distance with
cool white light, while in the shadows of the foreground
it illuminates the yacht's sail and stern, casting their reflec¬
tions on the gently rippling water. Welcoming the depar¬
ture of the storm, the crew of the kaag directly behind
the yacht raises the sails, 2 while in the shallows in the right
foreground men prepare to hoist the lowered masts of
a fishing boat. Aligned with the horizon, its deck forms the
base of a visual triangle for which the mast of the yacht
marks the peak.

Willem van de Velde the Younger portrayed the yacht
from the starboard side at a three-quarter angle so that it is
easily identified. 3 The crest of the Dutch East India Company
(Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC) appears on the
tafferel between two round ports of the brightly illumi¬
nated stern. The M located below the point of the V indicates
that the yacht belongs to the Middelburg chamber of
the VOC. On the rail above the VOC crest are the arms of
Zeeland (red lion half emerged from blue and white waves)
with lion supports; the inscription reads “luctor et emergo”
(I am struggling but will prevail). 4 Located in the southern
delta region at the mouth of the Scheldt River, the cities
of Zeeland, including Vlissingen, Middelburg, and Veere,
had long been centers of trade between England and
Flanders. Their importance grew after the blockade of
Antwerp in 1585 and the formation of the VOC in 1602, when
Middelburg, the capital of Zeeland, was made one of the six
chambers of the VOC, the most important after Amsterdam.
Established by the Dutch government but financed by
stockholders who shared both the risks and the profits, the

company was granted a monopoly over trade with Asia.^

The individual chambers were administered locally but
overseen by the Heeren XVII (Gentlemen Seventeen), which
consisted of eight directors from Amsterdam, four from
Zeeland, and one each from the cities of Enkhuizen, Hoorn,
Delft, and Rotterdam. An additional director rotated between
Zeeland and the other smaller chambers.

On board the yacht, gentlemen in black hats and white
cravats casually gather while sailors steer the boat toward
the open water. As officers of the Middelburg chamber
of the VOC, they had use of the company yacht for private as
well as official business. A comfortable mode of transporta¬
tion, yachts could be sailed on inland waterways and in
relatively calm weather on the North Sea. The Carter paint¬
ing includes no land reference to identify the location of the
harbor; the identity of the yacht, which was probably based
on an actual vessel, was apparently sufficient. Although
Van de Velde kept close to a compositional sketch made from
life in painting Beach with a Fishing Boats Pulled Up on Shore
(cat. no. 32), here he based the individual vessels on draw¬
ings but carefully staged them to create a serene impression.

In A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm , Van de Velde balan¬
ced the major vessels on either side of the composition,
providing a view to the distant horizon through the center
across the still water. He had begun painting “calms” by
1653, shortly after he returned to Amsterdam from Weesp,
where he had studied with Simon de Vlieger (cat. no. 34). It
was De Vlieger who had first developed the subject of calms,
which perfectly suited the new classical aesthetic that
replaced Baroque movement with balanced monumentality.
De Vlieger probably introduced the young artist to the
compositional format that he frequently adopted in, for
example. Low Tide (fig. 33.1). From his teacher. Van de Velde
also learned to combine soft lighting and atmospheric
effects with carefully observed reflections that animate the
calm sea. The young artist thus developed an individual

197

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

style that differed significantly from the precise documen¬
tary drawings and grisailles of ships and sea battles
produced by his father, Willem van de Velde the Elder (ca.
1611-1693).

The gray tonality of the Carter painting is typical of
works painted by Willem van de Velde the Younger for the
Van de Velde studio in 1671-72. Although he was by then
creating paintings on his own, he was still participating in
the activity of the large workshop that produced paintings
based on the drawings of sea battles the elder Van de Velde
drew from life as well as from images based on popular
models. The composition of A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm
is, for example, closely related to A Calm: A States Yacht under
Sail Close to the Shore with Many Other Vessels (Royal Collection
Trust, London, inv. no. RCIN 405328). Michael Robinson
pointed to slight errors in the drawing of some of the vessels
in the distance in the Carter painting—including the
square sail on the vessel in the center distance—suggesting
that this was painted by Willem van de Velde the Younger
with substantial help from the studio. 6 Recent examination

of the painting has also revealed a mistake in the descrip¬
tion of the insignia of the Dutch East India Company:
rather than oVc, the insignia appears as cVo. Robinson also
noted that the same yacht appears in A Dutch East India
Company's Yacht Firing a Salute near the Shore (with Leonard
Koetser Gallery, London, 1973), where it appears in reverse. 7
It is possible that the same drawing was used for both
paintings but flipped; this could explain the confused
insignia and imply a greater participation of the studio in
the completion of the painting.

A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm was probably painted
for one of the officers of the Middelburg chamber of the
VOC, who would at times have been a passenger on the yacht.
Although a contemporary engraving after a picture of
a pleasure yacht by Dirck Evertsz. Lons (ca. 1599-after 1666)
bears the caption, “The profits gained from shipping are
often squandered on sailing,” there is little reason to think
that either the artist or his patron thought of the painting
as anything other than a celebration of the prosperity of the
chamber and the patron's proud association with it. 8

198

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

Fig- 33-1

Fig. 33.1 Simon de Vlieger, Low Tide, ca. 1652.

Oil on panel, 26% x 35 Yz in. (67x90 cm).

Musee des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg (inv. no. 434)

199

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR33.1 Digital micrograph (200X magnifica¬
tion) showing grounds and paint layers

The support is a medium-fine, plain-
weave canvas that is lined to a similar
canvas with an aqueous adhesive.

The current stretcher is larger than the
original painting; the original painted
image measures viYz by 15% inches
(31.8 by 39.7 cm). The original tacking
margins have been removed from the
left side and the bottom. The left side is
cut evenly, but the bottom is a little
wavy with a few small losses. The top
and right side may retain slivers of
original tacking margins, which are
unevenly cut, folded out, filled with
a white material, and painted to match
the design.

A thick, dark red ground covers the
canvas, and a gray ground is on top (fig.
TR33.1). Infrared reflectography (IRR)
found no underdrawing.

The ground and paint of this painting
have more body and opacity than other
pictures in this catalogue. The painting
technique seems less dependent on
optical mixing through layering than
on a substantial application of local
color. Van de Velde the Younger applied
a light blue-gray layer of paint on the
ground for much of the sky and then
applied a thin layer of blue paint on top
(fig. TR33.2). Both blue layers contain
smalt, but the bluest areas also appear
to contain the pigment ultramarine.
The clouds were worked up with
opaque, pasty paints of local color.

The water has an initial gray paint layer.
Over this the artist painted the darker
and lighter tones for the shadows and
highlights of the waves. Lead-white,
smalt, and carbon-black pigments were
identified in the silvery water in the
foreground. The X-radiograph indi¬
cated that the ships 5 sails were painted
over the paint of the sky, while the hulls
of the boats had a reserve.

The X-radiograph and IRR show that
the large central sail was originally
more upright and slightly larger. The
boats in the distance on the right side
appear a little fuzzy in IRR, which may

200

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

Fig. TR33.2 Detail of the sky at upper left showing
the blue-gray paint layer beneath the blue layer

indicate that the artist made some
changes in this area. This may also be
due to abrasion, although no resto¬
ration was visible in ultraviolet light.

The painting is signed and dated in
black paint applied wet-in-wet in
the dark brown paint of the plank. The
signature is in good condition.

Ultraviolet light revealed a horizontal
restoration of a probable scratch
approximately 4 to 5 inches long at top
center. There are also a number of small,
scattered restorations. The top and right
edges of the painting have been
repainted. The varnish is clear, even,
and fairly saturating. In ultraviolet
light the varnish has a warmish
fluorescence that becomes greenish in
the lower center.

201

Willem van de Velde the Younger, Beach with FishingBoats Fulled Up on Shore

Simon de Vlieger

(1600/1601-1653)

View of a Beach, 1646

Oil on canvas, 34^6 x 53 14 in.

(87.2 x 135.9 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

AC1995.179.1

Provenance

Signed and dated lower right: SDE VLIEGER 1646

Exhibitions

References

202

S imon de Vlieger's View of a Beach is one of the largest
and most impressive seventeenth-century depictions
of a Dutch beach. A uniquely Dutch subject that
combines broad expanses of sky and sea with anecdotal
images of local fishermen hauling their boats ashore and
selling their catch, independent beach scenes first appeared
at the beginning of the seventeenth century, having pre¬
viously served as the setting for such biblical subjects as
Joachim Beuckelaer's (ca. 1534-ca. 1574) The Miraculous
Draught of Fishes, dated 1563 (The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los
Angeles, inv. no. 71.PB.59), and such historical events as
the embarkation of Frederick V, elector Palatine in 1613 or
the stranding of a whale. 1 By the 1630s, the sea painter
De Vlieger and others had turned their attention to the
everyday activities of the Dutch shoreline. 2 Typically, De
Vlieger's pictures depict people from different social groups
gathered on the beach: the fishermen for whom the beach
was their natural habitat, the townsmen who came to
purchase fish, and the elegant visitors who sought refresh¬
ment and entertainment.

Probably not showing a specific historical event, the
Carter painting represents the departure of the Dutch fleet. 3j
The event was greeted with great excitement, drawing
people from all walks of life to the beach. At the far left
a fisherman, a hunter, and gentlemen—one of whom is
seated on his red cloak looking through a telescope—have
climbed the dune to get a better view of the large fleet that
stretches far into the distance. Two large ships lying at
anchor just offshore are turned toward the open sea in prepa¬
ration to sail. The red flag at the stern of the ship closest
to shore and the big red, white, and blue flag flown from its
mainsail indicate that it is commanded by the admiral of
the fleet. 4 The ship's unfurled sails and the men scurrying
about on deck suggest that the cannon salute is announcing
the fleet's imminent departure.

The scene depicts the roadstead at Texel, an island in
the North Sea where the Dutch fleet assembled before
sailing to the Indies or into battle. 5 The dark line on the
distant horizon is probably Den Helder on the Dutch
mainland across the Marsdiep from Texel. 6 The roadstead,
located on the eastern side of Texel, was a stretch of beach
punctuated by jetties where ships could anchor to let people
and cargo go ashore and to load new supplies and people
on board. 8

De Vlieger used a dark shadow cast by the dunes to
frame the beach, where people of high and low social
standing mingle. The activity surrounding the arrival and
departure of the fleet takes place amid the normal activity of
the shore, where fishermen have beached their boats and
spread fish out on the sand to sell to the local villagers. In
the center of the composition, at the water's edge, men and
women gesture toward a boat transporting passengers from
one of the large ships to the beach. Evidently impatient

with the skiff's pace, a passenger climbs over the side of
the boat to be carried ashore, while another wades through
the water with a woman on his back. On the left, closer to the
foreground, men load a wagon as a couple embraces in
the shadow of the dune, their affection echoed by the two
nuzzling drafthorses. A second wagon facing the sea appears
to be unloading supplies. To the right of the wagons, sailors
talk to two gentlemen and a woman with a page. A grey¬
hound sitting next to them identifies them as members of
the gentry, who kept the sleek dogs for hunting and also as
pets. Farther to the right, two more greyhounds accompany
a gentleman on horseback who seems to have just arrived.

A prolific draftsman, De Vlieger derived his amusing
anecdotal staffage from drawings he sketched directly from
life. 8 Executed in either chalk or pen and ink, his rapid
sketches of individuals and groups of people as well as
broader views of the activity on the beach and the adjacent
land served as inspiration and direct sources for types
of people and compositions rather than true preliminary
sketches for his paintings. De Vlieger was particularly
sensitive to the expressions and physical attitudes of ani¬
mals as well as people—the alert greyhounds, for example,
appear in two etchings, and stocky workhorses are the
subject of others. 9 Infrared evidence of underdrawing and
pentimenti indicate that he composed directly on the
canvas based on ideas developed from his individual sketches
(see Technical Report).

Jan Kelch has suggested the direct influence of the
painting by Adam Willaerts (1577-1664) Warships off the Coast
withaFishmarketon the Beach (fig. 34.1). 10 While De Vlieger
undoubtedly knew this and similar works by Willaerts, the
two paintings differ significantly in terms of space. Whereas
Willaerts used dunes to frame, and thereby limit, the com¬
position, De Vlieger opened the foreground and achieved an
impression of deep space that flows seamlessly to the
distant horizon and extends beyond the width of the paint¬
ing. The carefully placed figures and ships contribute to
his creation of an integrated composition that is absent in
both Willaerts's paintings and De Vlieger's own earlier
compositions.

The extremely low horizon in the Carter painting
leaves three-quarters of the painting to the sky. De Vlieger's
careful placement of the fleet as well as of the figures on the
beach suggests that he was consciously applying the rules
of perspective to his composition to create the impression of
depth and space. His study of perspective is documented
by a sheet of studies signed and dated 1645 (fig. 34.2), the
year before he finished the Carter painting. The sheet is
divided into ten sections, each demonstrating the applica¬
tion of one-point perspective to different situations. 1 *

De Vlieger represented buildings in only two drawings. His
primary interest was in applying rules of perspective to
landscapes and marines, subjects treated by Karel van Mander

203

De Vlieger, View of a Beach

(1548-1606) in Den grondt der edelvry schilder-const (1604) and
by Philips Angel (ca. 1618-1664/65) in Lof der schilder-konst
(1642). 12 Van Mander had advised artists “to pay heed to
foreshortening and reduction as it appears in nature. Even
if your subject is not architecture, which demands strict
rules, you must know how to place your viewing or vanish¬
ing point accurately on the horizon—that is, on the surface
of the water. Everything that is below it is seen from above,
and the rest from below.” 13 In the Carter painting, the
position of the viewer is suggested by the men standing on
the dune at left. The line of the horizon is at their eye level.

Like many of the contemporary sea painters, De Vlieger
was fascinated by light effects. By 1643, when he painted
Beach View (Mauritshuis, The Hague, inv. no. 558), his light
had changed from the grayish tonality of his earlier paint¬
ings, influenced by the example of Jan Porcellis (see cat. no.
22), to a silvery light that characterizes his later beach scenes
and seascapes. De Vlieger's mastery of light effects is evident
in the Carter painting, where opalescent light illuminates
the sky and sea and reflects off the wet surface of the sand as
well as off the glimmering skin of the fish. Broad shadows
of clouds cast across the shimmering water help to define
the progression to the horizon, where light and mist blur the
division between sea and sky. At the same time the clouds
and sea create a foil for the figures on the beach. Caught in

bright sunlight, they cast long shadows across the sand.
Conceived in terms of the sharp definition of light and dark,
they recall the artist's pen and wash drawings.

The large scale of the Carter painting suggests that De
Vlieger painted it on commission, presumably for someone
connected with the Dutch fleet. It may be the picture
described as “een Tesselstrant [a Texel beach] van Jan de
Vlieger” in the 1678 inventory of Johanna van den Bergh of
Amsterdam and Achtienhoven made at the time of her
marriage to her second husband, Justus van Sonsbeeck,
schout (sheriff) of Actienhoven. 14 The document identifies
her as the widow of Gerard Stijls, provost of the College of
the Admiralty of Amsterdam. The possibility that De
Vlieger painted ViewofaBeach for De Stijls is supported by
the inclusion of the admiral's flag hoisted on the mainsail
and the three Xs of the seal of Amsterdam on the stern of the
large ship in the foreground, which may identify it as the
Amsterdam. A spiegelretourschip , the most important type of
transport ship in the seventeenth century, th t Amsterdam
was built in 1631 at the Amsterdam docks for the Dutch East
India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC).
Between 1632 and 1648 it sailed around the Cape of Good
Hope at least ten times from Texel to Batavia and from there
to Hirado, Japan. 15

204

De Vlieger, View of a Beach

Fig. 34-1

Fig. 34-2

Fig. 34.1 Adam Willaerts (1577-1664), Warships
off the Coast with a Fishmarket on the Beach, ca. 1620.

Oil on panel, i8 7 /s x 41% in. (48 x 106 cm).
Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology,
University of Oxford, bequeathed by Revd. Dr. John
King, 1737 (inv. no. WA1845.9)

Fig. 34.2 Simon de Vlieger, Studies of Perspective,
1645. Pen and brown ink on paper, 12% x 8 % in.
(32.1 x 21 cm). The British Museum, London,
purchased from Charles Francis Arnold Howard,

5 th Earl of Wicklow (inv. no. 1874,0808.99)

205

De Vlieger, View of a Beach

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR34.1 A detail of the IRR reveals a man with
a dark hat seated next to the blonde woman in the
final painting. He seems to be leaning toward her
looking back at the cart or beach. He has his hand
extended to rest on her arm. There may be another
face in between this man and woman.

The support is a plain-weave, fairly
heavy canvas that is lined with an
aqueous adhesive to a similar canvas
mounted on a stretcher measuring
36 by 54^ inches (91.4 by 138.4 cm). The
remnants of the original tacking edges
have been flattened and painted to
extend the painting in each direction.
The X-radiograph shows lines of paint
loss where the tacking edges had been
folded over an earlier stretcher. It also
shows broad arcs that must have to
do with the application of the ground,
which is thick and pink, and contains,
among other pigments, red ocher.

De Vlieger layered paints, using glazes
and scumbles to create the optical colors
that extend the tonal range and
heighten the realism of the sky and sea.
He appears to have painted a light
blue-gray layer over the ground for at
least the sky and water. The translucent
blue paint of the sky, which is colored
primarily with smalt, was brushed over
the blue-gray paint layer and around

the general cloud forms. The clouds
were built up with gray and lighter-
colored paints that are mixtures of white
and any of the following pigments:
smalt, ochers (red, yellow, orange), and
carbon black. The artist also applied
glazes and scumbles to create nuances
and darker grays over the painted
clouds and adjacent blue sky. The light
gray sky at the horizon consists of
a layer of light blue paint thinly glazed
with black. The horizon line is strongly
visible in the X-radiograph, but it does
not go under the large ships at the left
or the sails at the right.

The hill in the background on the right
has yellowish glazes and thin green
paint, which contains copper-based
pigments such as azurite, over the blue-
gray layer noted above. Yellow and
pink glazes were applied over the same
blue-gray layer to define the sea. De
Vlieger used opaque local color and
glazes to develop the figures. In the
group of figures at the lower right, the
sleeve of a woman standing with her
back to the viewer is painted with
violet-colored paint over a gray layer.

Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed
extensive underdrawing and numerous
pentimenti, indicating De Vlieger was
changing and simplifying the composi¬
tion as he worked. 1 The underdrawing
seems to have been done in different
stages and with different materials.
What appears to be black chalk or char¬
coal drawing (characteristically powdery
and varying in width) was found in
parts of the jetty and sea. The figures
and animals, however, have more
precise dark outlines that appear thin¬
ner and more solidly dark with tapering
ends, suggesting they were drawn
with a brush and carbon-black liquid
medium. There is the possibility that
the figures were outlined in roughly the
same manner, and, once they had been
refined with the brush, the chalk or
charcoal was removed. All of the penti¬
menti have the same brushed outlines.

206

De Vlieger, View of a Beach

Fig. TR34.2 The IRR shows that either the man
with a staff was moved or another man was
originally placed close behind the horseman, only to
be painted out later. There also appears to be
another figure in the foreground in between the
child and the red-skirted woman.

There is a clear sense of recession in the
size of the figures and boats as well
as a type of symmetry in the overall
composition that suggest De Vlieger
may have used perspective guides.
Although he is known to have applied
the rules of one-point perspective to
landscapes and seascapes, no perspec¬
tive lines were found in IRR. 2

His use of dark washes in this painting
is similar to his use of black chalk with
dark gray washes in many of his
drawings on paper. 3 For example, there
are two male figures on the left near
the nuzzling horses; one is between the
two horses while the other is unloading
the cart. Both figures have been out¬
lined and then developed with a carbon-
black brushed wash. 4 Although both
figures are partially hidden by the white
horse that De Vlieger painted directly
over them, their full figures are visible
in IRR. 5 Additional legs associated
with the horses hitched to the wagon
and the pentimento of a wheel further
indicate De Vliegers reconsidering
the placement and relationship of the
wagon and figures.

Additional major pentimenti observed
in IRR include a man with a hat seated
next to the blonde woman (also with
a hat), who is seated to the left of the
wagon. In the IRR image, he is looking
away from her but extends his hand
in an intimate gesture to clasp her arm
as it rests on her knee (fig. TR34.1).

There may also be another face between
and behind this man and woman.

A female figure wearing a hat and bend¬
ing to look into a basket appears in
IRR in front of the kissing couple on the
left side of the painting.

On the right, behind the two dogs, there
is a man pulling a small boat that is now
disguised as the shadow of the boat
behind it. The dogs also appear to have
been somewhat shifted in position.
Behind and to the right of the horse¬
man on the right side of the painting
there is another male figure that may
represent an earlier placement of the
man with a staff (which was shifted) to
the right. Another figure also existed in
between the child and the red-skirted
woman, closer to the viewer (fig. TR34.2).

Small changes in hats and positions
were made to the two bearded men on
the far right, the seated woman of the
kissing couple, and the beached fishing
boat on the far right side, above the
signature.

The artist signed the painting with gray
paint brushed into the semi-wet,
cream-colored paint of the plank.

The picture is in good condition. The
surface has scattered pinpoint losses.
Ultraviolet light showed scattered
restorations, including restoration of
a 4-inch tear just above the ship in the
central distance and a 2-inch tear in
the clouds above this ship. The painting
has a clear saturating varnish, which
appears to be a synthetic.

NOTES

1 The infrared reflectogram was captured using
a i6oonm interference bandpass filter that
gave a sharper image of the underdrawing and
pentimenti.

2 See Ruurs 1983 and discussion in art historical
entry.

3 See C. P. van Eeghen 2011 and discussion in art
historical entry.

4 Further technical analysis would be necessary to
determine if this wash is water-based or oil.

5 Lead white is fairly transparent in IRR.

207

De Vlieger, View of a Beach

Emanuel de Witte

Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

(1616/18-1692)

the Tomb of William the Silent , 1653 M.2003.108.5

Oil on wood, 32^ x 25% in.

Provenance

(82.6 x65.1cm)

Exhibitions

Signed and dated lower right, on the column:

References

E • De Witte /Ao 1653

208

O n 12 February 1614 the members of the States

General awarded Hendrick de Keyser (1565-1621),
Amsterdam's official sculptor, what would be the
most important seventeenth-century sculpture commission
in the Netherlands—the sepulchral monument for William
the Silent (1533-1584), “the father of the fatherland.”
Completed in 1622, the monumental tomb was installed in
the place of the high altar in the apse of what had formerly
been the Catholic church of Saint Ursula in Delft but which
by then was the Protestant Nieuwe Kerk (New Church). 1
William I, the prince of Orange and leader of the Dutch
revolt against Spanish rule, had been murdered in Delft in
1584. Unable to be buried in the family tomb in Breda,
which was under Spanish control, his body was taken to
Delft, where it was originally placed in a simple catafalque
under a baldachin at the end of the north aisle. 2

Emanuel de Witte depicted the tomb of William the
Silent in at least six paintings, the earliest of which dates
about 1649-50 and the last 1664. Here, in a painting dated
1653, the viewer looks west from the ambulatory of the apse
along the longitudinal axis of the church through the
superstructure of the tomb of William the Silent. Framed
by the massive columns of the ambulatory and the drape of
a gold-fringed green satin curtain that restricts the view
of the soaring vault of the church, it is De Witte's boldest
composition. Light entering from the upper left through
concealed clerestory windows illuminates the interior vault
of the marble tomb, the recumbent effigy of the prince on
his deathbed, and the columns and figures in the fore¬
ground. Defined by subtle variations in light and shadow,
the massive columns assertively project forward, creating
the impression of tangible space. There a man apparently
engages a woman in conversation, and a young boy and two
dogs are nearby.

Originally a figure painter, De Witte integrated genre
elements into his architectural compositions. Here the
carefully positioned figures animate and help define space
with their gestures: a brilliant red cape draped over his
shoulder, an elegantly dressed man points toward the effigy
of the prince lying in sunlight beneath the marble canopy of
the tomb. As he turns toward a woman partially hidden
by the column, the white feather in his hat repeats the line

of his gesture. The placement of the sleek hunting dog
and the spaniel lifting his leg contributes to the perception
of space, which wraps around the columns into the dis¬
tance, where smaller figures appear on the periphery of the
composition.

In contrast to his contemporary Gerard Houckgeest
(ca. 1600-1661), whose oblique view of the tomb in a 1650
painting of the subject invites the viewer to enter the picto¬
rial space of the church (Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg,
inv. no. HK-342), De Witte restricts that entrance. The iron
railing designed by De Keyser to surround the monument
stretches between the two columns and forms a barrier
for both the viewer and the visitors to the tomb. Although
the columns visible within the north side of the tomb
appear to recede, the space beyond the railing seems oddly
compressed. The spatial conflict is further complicated by
the luxurious green satin drapery, which recalls the
seventeenth-century practice of attaching curtains to the
frames of paintings to protect them from the elements,
as seen in De Witte's Portrait of a Family, dated 1678 (fig. 35.1).
Gathered up and suspended from an unseen point, the
curtain in the Carter painting appears to cast a shadow across
the surface of the panel, emphasizing its two-dimensional
quality and the double illusion of architecture and drapery.

De Witte, Houckgeest, and Hendrick van Vliet
(1611/12-1675), the three most prominent architectural
painters in Delft, all used the device of a painted curtain in
a number of paintings during the early 1650s. 3 Many of
these include illusionistic metal railings seemingly attached
to the frames. The device was first used by Rembrandt
Harmensz. van Rijn (1606-1669) in his 1646 painting The
Holy Family with a Curtain (Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister,
Kassel, inv. no. GK 240) and, more significantly, in his
etching Medea or the Marriage of Jason and Creusa, of 1648 (fig.
35.2). There a curtain appears to have been pulled back
along a rail suspended from the arch of a church ambulatory
to reveal the service taking place. 4 In the Carter painting,
in which the railing is absent, the use of the curtain likewise
acknowledges the presence of the viewer, who is permitted
to enjoy a privileged view. 5 Here, however, the shadow cast
on the panel by the curtain reveals that the composition
itself is an illusion.

209

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

The trompe Toeil curtain was a well-known conceit
connected to a story told by Pliny and referred to by Karel
van Mander (1548-1611) in 1604 and by other contemporary
Dutch writers. 6 According to Pliny, there was a competition
between the painters Zeuxis and Parrhasius: Zeuxis pro¬
duced a picture of grapes so successfully represented that
birds flew toward the picture; whereupon Parrhasius
himself produced such a realistic picture of a curtain that
Zeuxis, proud of the verdict of the birds, requested that the
curtain should now be drawn and the picture displayed;
and when he realized his mistake, with a modesty that did
him honour, he yielded up the prize, saying that whereas he
had deceived birds, Parrhasius had deceived him, an artist. 7

De Witte painted Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with
the Tomb of William the Silent in 1653, a year after he moved
from Delft to Amsterdam in 1652. The accuracy of his render¬
ing of the tomb and its setting indicates that he must have
based the image on now-lost drawings and measurements
he had made from life. Infrared reflectography reveals that
De Witte drew the architecture directly on the prepared
panel with a sharp instrument, probably a graphite pencil,
using a straightedge and a compass (see Technical Report).
At least one vanishing point, located on the left, served as
a guide to his description of the space. Additional vanishing
points may have been positioned on the exterior of the
painting. X-radiography indicates that De Witte painted the
architecture completely before painting the curtain over
it and adding the staffage. The figure of the man in the red
cape reappears in De Witte's paintin g Amsterdam Stock
Market , also dated 1653 (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam, loan from the Willem van der Vorm Foundation,
1972, inv. no. VdV 91), suggesting that both were based on
a now-lost drawing. 8

There are more than fifty extant paintings of the
Nieuwe Kerk with the tomb of William the Silent by De
Witte and his contemporaries, as well as prints and even
images on Delftware produced by contemporary artists
in Delft, particularly after 1650. 9 The unfinished tomb of
William the Silent was depicted in a fictional setting as early
as 1620 by Bartholomeus van Bassen (ca. 1590-1652) with
figures by Esaias van de Velde (1587-1630) (fig. 35.3), but
interest in the monument grew after the sudden death of
the stadtholder William II (1626-1650), the young prince
of Orange, in November 1650 as he laid siege to Amsterdam,
the seat of republican opposition to his political ambitions.
The following March, Willem II was laid to rest with great
fanfare in the tomb of his grandfather, where his father and

uncle, the stadtholders Frederik Hendrik (1584-1647),
prince of Orange, and Maurits (1567-1625), prince of Orange,
were also interred. The monument, originally commis¬
sioned during the Twelve Years' Truce with Spain (1609-21),
served as a symbol of the House of Orange and its political
ambitions. 1 ^

The historical significance of William I as the founder
of the Dutch Republic made the monument a popular
tourist attraction for foreign as well as local visitors Joseph
Taylor, a British traveler to the Netherlands, described the
famous Delft monument, which he visited in September 1707:

In [the New Church] I saw the most noble monument
of the great William, Prince of Orange_It is a mau¬

soleum in the front of which is placed his effigies
in brass, booted and spurred and sitting cross legged
with his helmet at his feet. On each side of him in
niches are two brazen [brass] figures of Liberty and
Justice; behind this is his effigies again, lying at length
in marble, his head placed on a pillow and at his feet
lies a dog.... There is another figure of Fame in brass,
blowing a trumpet, whose whole weight is supported
by the great toe on which it is fixed, and two other
figures, of Charity and Mercy (Religion and Valour),
to answer those of Justice and Liberty. The frontispiece
is supported by eight pillars of red (black) polished
marble, but the capitals and pedestals are white, each
side is adorned with several devices and inscriptions
and the whole enclosed with a balustrade of iron J

The tablet surmounting the tomb extols William I's
accomplishments and records that it was erected specifically
to serve as an eternal memorial of his merits, which were
shared by the nation. 12 The virtues were not only his person¬
ally but also symbolic of the republic's political ideals.

The figures of Religion and Liberty represent the causes for
which the Dutch opposed Spanish rule. Early seventeenth-
century political theory regarded Fortitude and Justice
as the foundations of the state. 13 In one of his earliest depic¬
tions of the tomb, one strongly influenced by his contempo¬
rary Houckgeest, De Witte showed the monument from
the northwest, focusing on the figure of Liberty holding her
hat in her outstretched hand. The most frequently painted
view of the monument, it emphasizes the virtue most often
identified with the prince, who was praised for having liber¬
ated the country from the tyranny of Spain and for promoting
religious freedom with Protestantism as the dominant faith.

210

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

Fig- 35-1

Fig- 35-2

Fig. 35.1 Emanuel de Witte, Portrait of a Family, 1678.
Oil on canvas, 27 x 34 Ys in. (68.5 x 86.5 cm). Alte
Pinakothek Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen,
Munich (inv. no. FV2)

Fig. 35.2 Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn (1606-
1669), Medea or the Marriage of Jason and Creusa, 1648.
Etching, 9 3 /s x 6 7 /s in. (24 x 17.6 cm). Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, Mr. and Mrs. De Bruijn-van der Leeuw
Bequest, Muri, Switzerland (inv. no. RP-P-1961-1049)

211

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerb in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

The Carter painting is unique in focusing on the
figure of Fame. The gesture of the gentleman, accentuated
by his red cape, draws attention to Fame and to the illumi¬
nated effigy of William recumbent on his deathbed. In the
shadows on the far side of the tomb, a man looking up at the
statue of the seated prince dressed in armor similarly hints
at his military role. The only other element of the tomb that
is visible is the figure on the right, that of Fortitude (Valor).

Arthur Wheelock suggested that the unexpected
death of William II created a market for paintings of church
interiors with explicit vanitas overtones. Paintings of the
tomb of William the Silent were, he posited, significant
as symbols of both the House of Orange and the inevitability
of death. The association of tombs with death was made by
De Witte's contemporary, the chronicler of Delft Dirck
van Bleyswijck, who admonished his readers to visit tombs
daily to reflect on death and the vanities of life. The monu¬
ment to William the Silent and his sons and young grandson
was, as many noted, a clear indication that princes were
also mortal. 14

The interest in tombs does not, however, appear to
have been primarily driven by religious concerns. By the mid¬
seventeenth century, tomb tourism was flourishing in the
Netherlands. 15 Published travel guides, such as Jean-Nicolas
de Parival's Les delices de la Hollande (Leiden, 1651), relate the
history of individual towns and identify the important
memorials to naval heroes and prominent citizens that had
replaced the Catholic altars and statues of saints. 16 Tourists

could also hire personal guides who took pride in recount¬
ing the accomplishments of local heroes. 17 Van Bleyswijck
himself notes, “This work [the tomb of William the Silent] is
as beautiful and elegant as is to be found anywhere, and
many people come every day from far-flung foreign parts to
view the same, being amazed not only by the elegance
of the same, for those with an understanding of art are also
astounded by the most excellent art employed therein.” 18
Churches in Delft were open all day to accommodate the
tomb tourists.

The relatively large size of the Carter painting suggests
that it was commissioned. 19 While the patron may have
desired the painting as a statement of his pro-Orange senti¬
ments, which were particularly strong in The Hague and
Delft about 1652-53, the presence of a painting of the tomb by
De Witte in the inventory of Isaac Swartepaert, Amsterdam,
in 1671 suggests that the paintings may have had broader
appeal as a reference to the foundation of the Dutch
Republic. 20 The focus of De Witte's painting on the figure of
Fame rather than Liberty may indicate that the primary
appeal of the painting was not political but honorary.

As Walter Liedtke has suggested in relationship to a paint¬
ing by Houckgeest, it should be seen as “a celebration of the
birth of a nation and as a remembrance of its father-figure.''^
By framing the subject with the beautiful tromp l'oeil
painted curtain, De Witte identifies himself with Parrhasius,
and by signing his name prominently in red paint in the
form of scrajitti on the column at the right, he proclaims his
own fame.

212

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

Fig. 35-3

Fig. 35.3 Bartholomeus van Bassen (ca. 1590-1652),
Interior ofan Imaginary Church with the Tomb of William
the Silent, 1620. Oil on canvas, 44 Vs x 59% in.

(112 x 151 cm). Szepmuveszeti Muzeum, Budapest
(inv. no. 1106)

213

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR35.1 The reverse of the panel shows joins
between the three boards that were later repaired
with butterfly cleats. A cradle was once adhered
to the reverse at the locations of the small squares.

Fig. TR35.2 The underdrawing, visible in the IRR,
shows that the artist used drafting tools to create an
accurate perspective. Blue indicates parallel lines
of underdrawing. Red indicates a compass was used
to draw arches of various sizes. Yellow shows
diagonal lines that converge at a single vanishing
point. Diagram by Silviu Boariu, Objects Conservator,
LACMA.

The panel is composed of three vertical
boards of different widths: the board on
the left is 9M6 inches; the middle board
is 8 % inches; and the board on the right
is 7 9 /i 6 inches wide. The panel is Va inch
thick and beveled. Joins have been
repaired with fills and butterfly cleats.
Ghosts of horizontal and vertical
members of a former cradle are visible
on the reverse (fig. TR35.1). The panel is
near planar and in stable condition.

The upper left and lower right corners
have been restored with very small
pieces of wood. Paint along the top edge
of the picture is jagged. The bottom
edge appears totally intact. The state of
the left and right sides, where Va- inch
strips of wood have been attached,
requires further investigation.

The panel has a thin white ground over
which there may be a second thin warm
ground or an imprimatura. The
painting was extensively underdrawn,
as is apparent in the infrared reflecto-
gram (IRR) (fig. TR35.2). 1 The lines of
the underdrawing are solidly dark and
sharp, each is fairly uniform in width
along its length, but some differ very
slightly in width. This suggests the use
of a drawing instrument such as
graphite pencil or metalpoint. Either of
these implements would wear down
with use—the line becoming slightly
wider as the drawing progressed—until
they were resharpened by the artist. 2

The underdrawing was worked out
directly on the panel, not transferred
from another drawing. IRR revealed
many perspective guidelines that De

Witte covered with paint once they had
served their function. For instance, he
used diagonal and horizontal perspec¬
tive lines to correctly place the receding
square tiles in a diamond orientation;
these lines are not part of the “real”
architecture, so he covered them with
the white and dark gray paint used for
the floor tiles.

IRR also revealed that drafting tools
were used. The underdrawn horizontal
lines in the tiled floor and background
architecture (marked in blue in fig.
TR35.2) are perfectly parallel to each

214

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

Fig. TR35.3 X-radiograph with blue showing the
architecture that had been painted over by the
curtain and red indicating the man with the red cape

Fig. TR35.4 IRR detail showing that the
underdrawn lines pass beneath the architecture and
the figures

other. This would be very difficult to
achieve if just a straightedge were used,
suggesting that the underdrawing was
probably done using a T square or
similar instrument. Additionally, the
underdrawing shows that the arches are
part of a true circle, suggesting the use
of a compass. 3 The diagonal lines
leading to the vanishing point located
below center left, where the male figure
is pointing, were probably made with
a straightedge. De Witte also drew
freehand to finish up the lines he had
made with drafting tools; for instance,
he extended the curves of some arches
or continued a straight line as it bent to
make a corner in the architecture.

One of the most surprising finds revealed
in the X-radiograph (fig. TR35.3) and
IRR is that the architecture beneath the
painted curtain not only was under¬
drawn but was also developed in paint.
This suggests that the curtain was
added after the architecture. The under¬
drawing extends only to the right side
of the left-hand white column, but it is
detailed and complete. Comparison
with the X-radiograph revealed the
highlights for the large left column and
for the white column behind it on the
extreme left side, in addition to the
column on the right side, which con¬
tinue up under the curtain. Additionally,
both of the two black obelisks of the
tomb were painted with carbon black
before the green curtain was added.

In general, the IRR and X-radiograph
suggest a very systematic technique:
the architecture was underdrawn first,
then the figures were drawn in, after
which the architecture was painted, and
finally the figures were painted in. The
underdrawn lines of the architecture lie
beneath the figures, as does the carbon-
black paint used for the architecture
(fig. TR35.4), and in the X-radiograph
the painted base of the two dark
columns of the tomb is visible through
the man with the red cape.

Paints range from thin and translucent
medium-rich darks to opaque and pasty
light colors. The artist painted wet-
over-dry and blended wet-into-wet in

215

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

Fig. TR35.5 Detail of foreground, right side, to
show brushstrokes in column and floor

the same layer of application. Brush¬
strokes can be seen to follow form in the
painting, giving volume and weight
especially to the architecture. This
is especially evident in the curtain and
foreground columns. On the right
foreground column, for example, brush¬
strokes curve diagonally around the
cylinder of the column, and vertical
strokes describe each fiat facet of its base
(fig. TR35.5). The floor has long,
horizontal strokes, and some individual
black-and-white tiles have diagonal
strokes.

The stiff bristles of the brushes left
grooves in the pasty paint; the thinner
paint of the grooves allows colors
beneath to optically mix with the upper
layers. Thus, the different layers of
white to gray paint composing the

foreground columns visually mix in the
eye, suggesting the stone's natural
variety of color. In the shadowed areas
of the columns, where whitish paint
was thinly applied, a dull light pink
color, possibly the second ground or
imprimatura, shows through.

To paint forms over the architecture,

De Witte first applied an opaque middle
tone to cover the paint beneath and
then worked up the image over it. For
example, the curtain has a light green
paint layer on top of the architecture.
The middle tone contains primarily
green-earth and lead-white pigments,
which did a good job of covering
the painted architecture. The final rich
green color of the curtain and the
shadows were achieved with a dark
green glaze identified as copper
resinate. The paint for the yellow fringe
of the curtain contains lead-tin yellow.

The flesh of the figures was painted
first with a pinkish middle-tone color
that was worked up with highlights
and shadows (fig. TR35.6). The artist
adjusted forms as he painted. For
example, the backs of each of the two
dogs were adjusted with the white paint
of the column base; this adjustment
with white paint is just visible to the
unaided eye.

The signature is strengthened, but the
faint original inscription is intact. The
last c is totally original. Parts of the
A, 6 , and 5 and the upper right of the
3 are strengthened.

216

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

Fig. TR35.6 Detail of woman to right of man in red
cape, showing the buildup of flesh colors in her face

The condition of the painting is good.
Ultraviolet light shows thin lines of
restoration along the joins and some
smaller restorations scattered overall.
There is also restoration along the
edges. Some areas of light-colored
paint, for example the relief above the
double columns, contain tiny bubbles
or craters that were identified as lead
soaps. The surface of the painting has
a few scattered shallow dents, and there
are numerous bumps in the green cur¬
tain. The painting was lightly cleaned
and restored at LACMA in 2000, when
varnishing with a natural resin helped
to saturate the dark colors.

NOTES

1 The IR reflectogram was made using a 1600 inter¬
ference bandpass filter.

2 A pen line would be uniform in width except
where the direction was changed and the nib
angled differently. A wet, brushed line would
waver in thickness and have a tapering-off at the
end and perhaps a concentration of black where
the brush first touched the panel. Charcoal and
black chalk have a crumbly or powdery
appearance. The characteristics of pen, brush,
charcoal, or chalk are not found in this
underdrawing.

3 Some of the arches have very small physical marks
at their centers (visible in the X-radiograph) that
may be indentations from the compass. Our
thanks to Silviu Boariu, Associate Objects
Conservator at LACMA, for his discoveries, which
suggest De Witte’s use of measuring tools.

217

De Witte, Interior of the Nieuwe Kerin in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent

Emanuel de Witte

(1616/18-1692)

Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

Jgl-p] M.2009.106.18

Oil on wood, 18 14 x 22^6 in.

Provenance

(46.4 x56.4 cm)

Exhibitions

Signed and dated lower center, on the edge of the

References

lifted paving stone: E. De WIT [illegible] 65 [illegible]

218

J 'nteriorof the OudeKerk, Amsterdam is one of at least thirty-
eight paintings in which Emanuel de Witte depicted
the historic church from different vantage points. 1 The
Oude Kerk (Old Church) was the earliest parish church in
Amsterdam, founded about 1300, when the city was granted
municipal rights by the count of Holland. The iconoclastic
fury of 1566-67 heavily damaged the church, destroying
altarpieces and sculptures but sparing the great organ over
the entrance and many of the stained-glass windows.
Following the victory of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1578,
the many altars and statues of this former Catholic church
were removed and the interior was transformed to meet the
needs of the Protestant service, which focuses on hearing
the word of God in lieu of viewing images.

For the present painting, De Witte stood in the side
chapel in the southwest corner of the church and looked
north from the south aisle, across the nave and north aisle to
the tall light-filled windows of the opposite chapel in which
subtle suggestions of foliage and buildings are visible. The
play of reflected light and shadow, what Arnold Houbraken
(1660-1719) referred to as De Witte's “spirited play of light"
(geestige verkiezinge van lichten), 2 animates and defines the
complicated spaces of the church interior. Sunlight stream¬
ing through the western windows fills the screened chapel
at the left and continues on the floor of the south aisle.

On the far right, at the end of the sunlight, a gentleman
with a red cape stands apart from the congregants gathered
in the center of the church for the service. He has apparently
stopped to listen to the sermon. Sharp diagonal shafts
of light draw attention to the distant animated figure of the
preacher in his pulpit, next to which the blurred colors of
the window suggest the remnants of the old stained glass.

Infrared reflectography and microscopic examination
of the painting reveal underdrawing in graphite pencil
throughout the painting and a system of multiple vanish¬
ing points where the paint and ground were displaced
by a sharp point (see Technical Report). 3 The underdrawing
is most clearly visible on the left, where the arches, columns,
and capitals are indicated, sometimes with multiple free¬
hand, sketchy lines that indicate De Witte's effort to establish
their correct placement. 4 Several sharp diagonal lines lead¬
ing from the left to four vanishing points, which are
concentrated around the three people on the far left, served
as guides for establishing the proper perspective. Additional
cues are provided by the relative scale of these figures and
of the man with the red cape in the right foreground.

The interior space of the Oude Kerk appears at once
both vast and restricted. By enlarging the entrance to the
chapel that frames his view and exaggerating the width of
the south aisle, De Witte distorts the actual space. The flat
surfaces and series of columns of the arcades of the nave
and the bright sunlight through the south aisle align paral¬
lel to the picture plane and visually compress the space,
complicating the perception of depth.

The viewpoint and the exaggerated height and width
of the south aisle, however, allowed De Witte to include
the elegant marble screen erected at the entrance to the
chapel at the left. The chapel, the church's original baptis¬
tery, had been purchased in 1648 for a family tomb by the
powerful burgomaster Cornelis de Graeff (1599-1664).

The screen, completed after 1651, was probably designed by
Jacob van Campen (1596-1657) with sculptural work by
Artus Quellinus I (1609-1668). 5

De Witte's unusual view also directs attention to the
great organ located at the west end of the nave above the
entrance to the church. 6 Built between 1530 and 1540 with
doors decorated by Maarten van Heemskerck (1498-1574),
the organ was regarded as one of the finest in the Nether¬
lands. 7 Although the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church
had banned the playing of organs in 1574, few instruments
were actually destroyed and many continued to be played. 8
Among those who played in the Oude Kerk after the official
ban was the famous organist Jan Pietersz. Sweelinck
(1562-1621).

The controversy over the playing of the organ during
the actual church service was resolved after 1640, largely
because of the publication in Leiden of Gebruyck of ongebruyck
van’torgel inde kercken de VereenighdeNederlanden (To Use
or Not to Use the Organ in the Churches of the United
Netherlands) by the statesman and poet Constantijn
Huygens (1596-1687), who argued for the use of the organ
to accompany the singing of psalms during the service.
Among his arguments was the need to improve the quality
of congregational singing! 9 Many English travelers,
accustomed to more stringent restrictions, remarked about
the playing of organs to accompany singing in Dutch
churches. “The Dutch," one noted, “are mighty singers of
psalms, both at home and in their churches." 10

In many communities the city magistrates, who had
control over the organists, actually required them to play an
hour-long recital immediately following the morning and
afternoon church services. 11 Writing in 1765, Jan Wagenaar
noted in his history of Amsterdam that “already in the pre¬
vious (seventeenth) century music was played on the small
organ [next to the pulpit] every evening for the pleasure
of the strollers in the Oude Kerk."^

The architecture, which soars above the congregants,
plays a larger role in Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam than
in most of De Witte's paintings in which greater emphasis is
given to the staffage. The open spaces, smaller scale of the
figures, and tight handling of paint are similar to his works
from about 1659 to 1661, suggesting that the painting dates
about 1659. 13 The staffage, nevertheless, serves an important
function both compositionally and iconographically.
Balancing the deep vista on the left, the unidentified gentle¬
man with a red cape, sword, and hat standing next to
the massive column on the right directs attention to the

219

De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam

preacher silhouetted against the sunlight as he delivers his
sermon, the major element of the Calvinist service. The
sunlight entering the church from the west indicates that it
is the afternoon service, when the sermon was drawn from
the catechism. 14 Gathered in the nave and spilling over into
the aisles are the well-dressed congregants, including
men, women, and children. People of high and middle rank
sit around and between the pillars. 15 A London merchant
visiting the Oude Kerk observed: “[The church] was then
full of people all sitting at the communion, being the last
Sunday in the month. The men being all in black cloaks and
broad bands [collars] as big as handkerchiefs and sitting
apart from the women as we do in England, with this
difference that the men are in pews about pillars and the
women on benches or chairs in the open part of the church.” 16

The presence of people who do not appear to be part
of the service, such as the family and dog in the back of the
church beneath the great organ, is noteworthy. The colorful
clothing of the man standing in the bright light in the
foreground also sets him apart from the more conservatively
dressed congregants, who sit in pews. Wearing a sword
and accompanied by his hunting dog and possibly his page,
he appears to be a visitor rather than one who has come to
pray. Even before the Reformation, a distinction was made
between a preekkerk (preaching church), in which services
were held at set times, and a wandelkerk (strolling church), in
which anyone could come any time of day to wander
around, conduct trade, play, lounge about, or listen to
music. Here De Witte refers to the custom of visiting the
Oude Kerk, a preaching church that was also popular
among tourists, who strolled through part of the nave,
ambulatory, and side aisles to see the many historical
monuments to naval heroes while the service took place in
the main part of the nave. 17 In 1663, for example, an English
visitor to Amsterdam, William, Lord Fitzwilliam, observed:

In the old part of the town there is the Old Church,
a great and stately building having a very high steeple
and very rare chimes on the top of it.... Upon the
windows you will find many old pieces of painting
of Philip the Good [the Handsome] and his wife,
Christ’s nativity, and Mary’s and Elizabeth’s saluta¬
tion. Behind the choir is a new piece which represents
King Philip [IV] of Spain’s coronation and his signing
with his own hands the peace with the Seven United
Provinces [1648]. 18

The large number of paintings of the Oude Kerk attrib¬
uted to De Witte as well as to other artists attests to the
popularity of the subject. The paintings were undoubtedly
appreciated for their aesthetic appeal and as depictions of
a local monument. They may, however, also have served as
statements of faith. According to Walter Liedtke, De Witte’s
paintings were, in fact, often referred to as “sermons” in
seventeenth-century inventories. 19 In the Carter painting as
well as in others by De Witte, the prominent placement of
the opened tomb with the skull and bones in the fore¬
ground is a reminder of the inevitability of death. Here, by
juxtaposing the tomb and the congregation listening to
the sermon by the preacher, who appears, literally, to be
“enlightened,” De Witte proclaims the Calvinist belief that
salvation comes through faith in the word of God.

In at least two paintings, De Witte combined a family
portrait with a view of the interior of the Oude Kerk,
a probable reference to the religious faith of his patrons. In
one of these paintings, the interior of the Oude Kerk
appears in the background of a portrait of an unidentified
family represented in their home (see fig. 35.1). In the other,
a family included in the foreground within the church
appears to represent specific people (Amsterdam Museum,
on loan from the National Office of Cultural Heritage,
Rijswijk/Amsterdam, inv. no. SB 4929). Similarly, the
prominence in the Carter painting of the family chapel of
Cornelis de Graeff may indicate that De Witte, either on
commission or independently, intended it as a statement of
the powerful regent’s faith and a record of the monument.
Among the unattributed paintings in the estate of Cornelis
de Graeff’s son Pieter de Graeff (1638-1707), one of the
wealthiest men in the seventeenth century, was “a church
with many figures” (een kerk met veel beelden), which may
have been the Carter painting. 20

A careful ink and wash drawing of Interior of the Oude
Kerk, Amsterdam made by Cornelis Pronk (1691-1759)
accurately records the painting with only a few differences,
some of which are the result of paint losses and perhaps
Pronk’s desire to clarify details of the church based on his
own observations (fig. 36.2). 21 The most significant is his
definition of the relief carving on the marble screen of the
De Graeff chapel and of the elaborate copper gate, which
were illustrated in a full-page print in Wagenaar’s history of
Amsterdam in 1765.^ Pronk also included a sculpture at the
top of the third rib, just below the vault of the south aisle,
but omitted the figure of the child from the family group
beneath the great organ.

220

De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam

Fig. 36.1

Fig. 36.1 Cornelis Pronk (1691-1759) after Emanuel
de Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, n.d. Ink and wash,
12 14 x 17^4 (33.6 x 44.9 cm). Koninklijk
Oudheidkundig Genootschap, Amsterdam

221

De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam

TECHNICAL

REPORT

Fig. TR36.1 Infrared reflectogram

Fig. TR36.2 Detail of IRR underdrawing in capitals
of columns on left side of church. These capitals
were raised at a later stage in the painting. The blue
shows where the artist used freehand drawing, and
the red lines show his perspective guidelines.

■ 1 '

rN. I l

x 1 1

I, I'Mi

The panel is about % inch thick and
beveled; the reverse is stained or painted
brown. Wood strips, each about % inch
wide, have been added to the top and
bottom. The panel is in good condition
except for a short crack at the lower
right, several small areas of insect
damage, and a noticeable bow through
the horizontal center. There is a thin
cream-colored ground with a thinner
pink ground containing large lead-white
agglomerates on top. The horizontal
brushstrokes of the ground application
show through the paint layers on the
surface.

Infrared reflectography (IRR) revealed
sharp, fine underdrawing that included
perspective guidelines (probably done
with a straightedge) and freehand
drawing (fig. TR36.1). 1 Examination of
an area of exposed underdrawing with
the digital microscope showed that it
had a metallic appearance typical of
graphite or metalpoint. 2 The perspec¬
tive lines converge at vanishing points
marked by tiny indentations in the
paint of the panel on the left side. De
Witte filled the indentations with tiny

blobs of paint that are slightly different
in tone from the surrounding paint,
which is perhaps due to differential
aging. The existence of freehand draw¬
ing, perspective guidelines, and physical
vanishing points confirmed that here,
as in Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft
with the Tomb of William the Silent (cat. no.
35), De Witte drew directly on the
panel rather than transferred the design
from a drawing.

Freehand underdrawing found through¬
out the panel is most apparent in the
arches in the upper left, where they
testify to De Witte’s repeated efforts to
achieve the correct shape (fig. TR36.2).
The series of arches separating the nave
and side aisles also show his attempts to
get the correct angle. Drawing also
exists below the arch on the left, where
two capitals for the springers of the
vault were initially placed at a lower
position and later raised.

De Witte also used a brush to lay in
carbon-black washes that may have
been part of the underdrawing stage. 3
These washes were found in the
following pentimenti: the tall dark
shadow just to the right of the great
organ on the left side of the painting,

which may indicate an earlier place¬
ment of the organ; the blocky, dark
shape just to the right of the painting’s
center; and the dark shapes above the
group of small figures on the left side of
the painting, which may represent an
earlier placement of these same figures.
The picture hanging on the left-hand
wall has been shifted in position, and
there are also changes in the scale of the
furniture.

Paints range from thick, pasty light
colors to thin, translucent warm ones.
The thin applications of paint allow the
colors of the ground and underlayers
of paint to mingle with the upper layers.
The thickest paint, the bright vertical
strip of light on the back wall to the left
of the chandelier, is raised and rounded.
White paint was applied thickly and
perhaps in layers and glazed with yellow
paint. For the most part, De Witte used
fairly narrow brushes in this painting.
The thin, translucent warm colors
of the ceiling and the thin gray colors of
the stone floor are tinged by the color
of the ground. The complex column at
the right edge was laid in with a thin
layer of white or light pink paint on top

222

De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam

Fig. TR36.3 Detail of the fluted column in the
foreground on the far right shows the layering and
diagonal strokes of paint. The thinly painted wood
ceiling is in the background.

Fig. TR36.4 X-radiograph with some of the
pentimenti marked

of the pink ground and built up with
lighter and darker grays (fig. TR36.3).
The columns were painted in much the
same way as those in the artist’s Interior
of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of
William the Silent (cox. no. 35). Brush¬
strokes curve diagonally around the
columns to suggest volume. It is evident
from viewing with the naked eye and
the X-radiograph that the staffage
was painted over the architecture and
furniture.

The glass windows of the north aisle
blur the view outside the church. For
this effect De Witte brushed different
tones into and over one another. The
third large glass window from the left,
for example, was painted with a grayish
colored paint that contains the pigment
smalt. There is a higher concentration
of smalt in the darker, lower part of the
window than in the brighter, upper
area. A yellowish-colored glaze over the
gray layer produces a greenish hue that
suggests the foliage outside, and a pink
glaze over the gray layer indicates the
buildings outside. A yellowish glaze
applied over the pink and gray layers
creates a dull warm green at the middle
of the window.

The red cloak of the man at the right
consists of a number of layers of paint.
First, there is a dull red paint modeled
with black and dark lake glazes. Fine
black lines outline and define detail. For
the brighter red highlights, the artist
applied a light cream paint that he then
covered with vermilion-cinnabar (and
lake?) to get the strongest effect from
the red.

There are notable pentimenti at the
west end and north aisle of the church.
The lower third of the engaged column
next to the great organ on the west
wall appears in the X-radiograph bright
white with brushstrokes (fig. TR36.4).
The dark base of the column was
originally 14 inch higher. IRR and
X-radiography exposed changes in the
position of the organ that appear to
have to do with adjusting the viewpoint.

The inscription in light pink-gray paint
has been abraded and strengthened
to some degree. The first letter must be
an E and the next letter should be a D.
Following the first two letters, WIT are
legible. After that, one can possibly
read 1651.

The painting is in good condition. Sur¬
face paints are somewhat thinned,
particularly the painted wood ceiling.
The hazy appearance of the ceiling
is probably from the varnish. The black
sash of the man with the red cape has
some abrasion, flaking, and cracking,
but it has been restored. The paint
on the chandeliers appears strengthened.
The varnish is matte and may contain
some wax. The painting was sprayed
with an acrylic varnish in 1982.

NOTES

1 The IR reflectogram was taken using a i6oonm
interference bandpass filter. This helped
emphasize the fine underdrawing material that
seemed less dark and absorbing than the
underdrawing in De Witte’s Interior of the Nieuwe
Kerk in Delft with the Tomb of William the Silent
(cat. no. 35).

2 No analysis was carried out.

3 The fairly amorphous and transparent quality
of these areas suggests that they are washes that
contain carbon-black pigment. However, we
cannot tell if they are oil- or water-based without
sampling.

223

De Witte, Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam

ENDNOTES

1 Avercamp hack to entry)

1 For example, it was reported in Die nieuwe chroni-
jcke van Brabandt, p. 443: “In this year of [15)64 it
froze so severely for ten weeks on end that people
in Antwerp crossed the Scheldt on foot and horse¬
back from the day after Christmas until Twelfth
Night, and because of the great novelty, stalls
and tents were erected on the ice, where food and
drink and other wares were sold.” (In dit iaer van
lxiiii hever x weken lanck seer sterc ghevroosen /
so datme Tantwerpen over die Schelde ghinck te
voet en te peerde vanden tweede Kerstdach tot op
de dry Coninghen dach / en om der grooter nieu-
wicheyt / so heeft men daer Craeme en Tenten op
ghestelt / en spijse en dranc / en ander coopman-
schap op vercocht ghelijcmehier achter figuerlijc
siet.) Quoted in The Hague 2001-2, p. 12.

2 William Mountague (b. 1645), The Delights of
Holland: or, A Three Month’s Travel about That
and the Other Provinces. ... (London, 1696), pp.
221-22. Quoted in Van Strien 1998, pp. 372-73.
Mountague was in Holland from August to
November 1695; therefore, his report of the winter
activities must have been hearsay or derived from
another account.

3 The game of coif was played with a curved wooden
stick similar to a modern hockey stick. The object
was to hit a wooden ball or sheepskin ball stuffed
with cow or calf hair to an agreed target in the
fewest number of strokes. See The Hague 2001-2,
p. 26, and Roelofs in Amsterdam-Washington
2009-10, pp. 60-61. See also Bergen op Zoom

etc. 1982.

4 The watercolor is Welcker T 46 and T 510. The
painting (Welcker S14) is canvas mounted on
panel, 18 Yz x 35 in. (47 x 89 cm), and signed with
Avercamp’s monogram on a barrel. In addition
to the elegantly dressed couple in the right
foreground, the two paintings share a number
of other details, suggesting that they were done
close in date to each other.

5 Ploos van Amstel i82i-[27?], no. 8: “opniew in’t
koper gebragt en in zijne eigenlijke coleuren
gedrukt.” Plomp 1997, vol. 2, no. 20, pp. 52-53.

The inscription on Ploos van Amstel’s print reads:
“HA 1621 fe. dit is frederik de sde, koning van
bohemen en vrouw na het leven getijkent.” (This
is Frederick V, King of Bohemia, and wife drawn
from life.) Laurentius and Niemeijer 1980, no. 8,
p. 259. Ploos van Amstel claimed that the original
drawing was signed with Avercamp’s monogram.
John Walsh and Cynthia Schneider in Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 4, mistakenly state
that Avercamp’s drawing is inscribed. Avercamp’s
drawing includes neither a monogram nor a date

and does not identify the figures. For a discussion
of the drawing and print, see Schapelhouman
2009-10, pp. 114-15,169052.

6 Welcker and Hensbroek-van der Poel 1979, pp.
66-67,68-69. Welcker identifies the two youths
in the drawing as the elder sons of Frederick and
Elisabeth. See also Paris 1972, no. 63.

7 A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, no. 16, were the first to
question the royal identification, noting that
the figures appear in a painting De Vries dates to
before 1621, when Frederick and Elisabeth arrived
in the Netherlands. His opinion, supported by
later authors, was that the figures were intended
to be viewed as generic types. John Walsh and
Cynthia Schneider in Los Angeles-Boston-New
York 1981-82 and Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 5, also
rejected the identification, recognizing the

lack of resemblance of the figures to authentic
representations of the royal couple, such as the
grisaille of 1626-28 by Adriaen Pietersz. van de
Venne (1589-1662) depicting the pair departing
for the hunt (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no.
SK-A-958). The latter two authors also rejected
the identification by Welcker 1933 and by Van
Regteren Altena in Paris 1972, no. 63, of the
woman in profile as Amalia van Solms because the
woman in Avercamp’s painting does not resemble
accepted images of Van Solms. They concluded
that the drawing provided models to be used in
different combinations in Avercamp’s paintings,
something that would have been inappropriate
for images of the royal couple.

8 Du Mortier 2009-10, p. 142. Her suggestion that
the elegant group in the right foreground might
represent Emilia of Nassau (1569-1629), princess
of Portugal, and her retinue, who stayed in Snel’s
Inn in Kampen for two days in 1620, seems, how¬
ever, unlikely considering the age of the woman
in the painting. Emilia, who was the youngest
daughter of William of Orange and his second
wife, Anna of Saxony, and thus the half sister of
the stadholder Frederik Hendrik, would have
been at least fifty in 1620.

9 According to Du Mortier 2009-10, p. 152,

“Velvet or silk masks... were worn for a variety
of reasons: to remain incognito, to conceal
imperfections such as scars—pockmarks, for
instance—or freckles, as protection against the
cold, but usually to preserve the highly desirable
pale complexion.”

10 Du Mortier 2009-10, pp. 142-43.

11 Du Mortier 2009-10, p. 159.

12 In Brueghel’s painting, well-dressed aristocrats,
probably residents of the distant estate, picnic
in cattle fields next to a farmyard where farmers
conduct their business. One of the aristocratic
women takes a young child by the hand to
observe a farm woman milking. In other paint¬
ings Brueghel represents aristocrats observing
peasants dancing.

13 Wallert and Verslype 2009-10, especially

pp. 136-37-

14 For Avercamp and perspective, see Roelofs in
Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, pp. 56-57.

15 Wheelock in Washington 1995, p. 12, observed
that Avercamp’s painting A Scene on the Ice
(National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC) shares
not only landscape elements with the Carter
painting but also “no less [sic] than fourteen
figure groups.” Regarding Avercamp’s use of
drawings, see Schaelhouman 2009-10.

16 Pen and black ink, with watercolor, 4% x 8 % in.
(124 x 222 mm). Welcker T138.

17 Roelofs in Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, p. 79.

18 Engraving, 234 x 298 mm, Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-P-1885-A-9335.

Published by Hieronymus Cock (1518-1570), the
print remained popular for many years and
introduced a number of motifs that appear in
Avercamp’s paintings: people tying on skates;

a woman who has fallen, exposing her naked
buttocks; spectators; and people who have fallen
through the ice.

19 English translation by Nadine Orenstein
and Manfred Sellink in Sellink 2007, p. 68, of
the inscription added to the second state by
the Antwerp print publisher Johannes Galle
(1600-1676): “Aij leert hier aen dit beeldt, hoe
wij ter wereldt rijen / En slibberen onsen wegh,
d’een mal en d’ander wijs, / Op dees verganck-
lijckheijt veel brooser als het ijs.” The original
engraver had left space for an inscription; Galle’s
late inscription is the only one known.

20 Walsh and Schneider in Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82 and Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 4,
note the association of fortune-telling with this
common symbol of the heat of love. At p. 704 the
authors refer to Braunschweig 1978, nos. 15,32,
33, and Amsterdam 1976, no. 28. They correctly
reject the sexual association to the dead birds
held by the hunter who appears in a number of
paintings.

2 Berckheyde (back to entry)

1 In the previous catalogues of the Carter collection,
the support was incorrectly cited as canvas.

2 Vondel 1929-34, vol. 5 (1931), p. 866.

3 Hoogewerf 1919, p. 276: “Vreemdelingen staan
verbijsterd wanneer zij het voor het eerst aanschou-
wen, en het lijkt wel of alle vier de windstreken
van deze wereld zich hebben beroofd om haar te
verrijken en de meest zeldzame en verbazingwek-
kende schatten in haar haven te brengen.” English
translation from Amsterdam 1997, p. 34. The
painting Cosimo purchased directly from Jan van
der Heyden is The Town Hall of Amsterdam, 1667, oil
on canvas, 33^6 x 36 in. (85 x 92 cm) (Galleria
degli Uffizi, Florence, inv. no. 1890: 1211). See
Greenwich and Amsterdam 2006-7, no. 9,

224

pp. 122-25, ill. For Cosimo de’ Medici’s visits to
the Netherlands in 1667-69, see L. Wagenaar 2014.

4 Amsterdam 1997.

5 In other paintings (see, for example. The Dam
Square Looking toward the North, Amsterdam
Museum, inv. no. S A 2106; Amsterdam 2008,

p. 139, ill.), Berckheyde, like his contemporary Jan
van der Heyden (see, for example. The Town Hall of
Amsterdam, n. 3 above), took a position just south
of the building and slightly east at the entrance to
Dam Square from the Kalverstraat or the Kromel-
leboogsteeg so that he could represent an oblique
view of the Town Hall with the Nieuwe Kerk in
the distance.

6 Houses on the opposite side of the canal made it
difficult to view the back of the building directly
from the west, and the bend in the canal and the
base of the unfinished tower of the Nieuwe Kerk
made it difficult to view it from the north.

7 Amsterdam 1997, p. 14. The drawings belong to
a group of approximately ten separate views of
Amsterdam canals. The view of the Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal is drawn from about the same van¬
tage point. The dominant building is the Nieuwe
Kerk, which is obscured in Berckheyde’s painting
by the later construction of the Town Hall.

8 Nieuwenhuizeni974,figs.34and36.

9 Amsterdam 1997, p. 96. The procedure used
by Berckheyde thus differs from that of

Van der Heyden, who used a transfer drawing
(see cat. no. 14).

10 Peeters 1991 believes that Berckheyde based the
painting on another drawing in which he
updated the appearance of at least one of the
houses. Regarding the Thyssen-Bornemisza
painting, see also Gaskell 1990, pp. 294-97.

11 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 9-11.

12 Amsterdam 1918, no. 10, ill. The lighting and
perspective of the canal are similar in both
paintings, but the details of life on the canal are
different and simpler in the Muller painting. In
that version Berckheyde represents men
unloading barrels from a barge onto the quay
and two sailboats, their leeboards raised, docked
along the east side of the canal.

13 Amsterdam 1665, book 4, p. 245. The flower
market was moved to its present location along
the Singel in 1862. The former flower market is
the location of the present-day print collectors’
market.

14 J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), part 4, book 1,
p. 427.

3 VanBorsSOm back to entry)

1 Cramer 1970-71, p. 27, attributed the painting to
Adriaen van de Velde (1636-1672) but noted
“Traces of signature... some scholars identify the
signature as by Anthonie van Borssom... to
whom the work has also been given.” Correspon¬
dence in the Hans Cramer Records, Box 108,

Folder 10, Getty Research Institute, indicates that
on 29 March 1971 Kenneth Donahue, director of
LACMA, wrote to Hans Cramer, “please send photo¬
graphs of the Adriaen van de Velde Flat Panorama

Landscape _[A. B. de Vries, former director of the

Mauritshuis and the RKD-Nederlands Instituut

voor Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague] thought Mr.
Carter might be interested in the picture.”
Donahue wrote to Cramer again on 14 May 1971
(Box 110, Folder 11) after the painting had arrived
in Los Angeles, noting, “Ben Johnson, Head of
Conservation, studied the picture carefully and
both Dr. de Vries and Egbert Haverkamp
Begemann commented on the authorship. Both of
them feel, in fact, that there is no doubt the pic¬
ture is Anthonie van Borssom rather than Adriaen
van de Velde. In studying the signature, Ben
Johnson has come to the same conclusion.”
Cramer sold the painting as by Van Borssom to the
Carters in 1971. He incorrectly identifies the view
as “seen from Rhenen.”

2 See also Anthonie van Borssom, View of Schenken-
shanzand theEltenberg, near Emmerich, ca. 1656,
oil on canvas, 39^6 x 49^6 in. (99.2 x 125.3 cm),
Philadelphia Museum of Art, inv. no. W1901-1-2.

3 The inclusion of cattle, as well as the delicate red
and white wildflowers that animate the
foreground, especially in the views of
Schenckenschanz, reveals Van Borssom’s
familiarity with the paintings and prints of cattle
by Paulus Potter (1625-1654), with whom his early
work has been confused. For example. Van
Borssom, Barnyard Scene (ca. 1650-55, oil on canvas,
20 x 27 in. [50.8 x 68.6 cm]. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 32.100.12) was
acquired by the Metropolitan with a fake
signature of Paulus Potter. Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, no.
20, pp. 84-86. In contrast to the paintings of
Potter, however, in Van Borssom’s paintings, the
cattle never dominate the landscape.

4 Butkens 1626, p. 54. Rademaker 1725, no.
CCLXXIV, “View in the year 1520 of the ancient,
and fine Fortress of Lynden, commonly Called the
Terlee’s [ter Lede] Castel, not far from Rhin’s River
and near the Rhenen Town: that Edifice subsist
still, but t’is now very much altered by the
changes made to it.” Rademaker provides
descriptions in Dutch, French, and English for
each print.

5 It is uncertain which count could have
commissioned the painting. In 1664 George
Frederick, graaf van Waldeck Piermont ende
Culenborch, is mentioned as the heir of Hendrick
Walrat, graaf van Waldeck Piermont ende
Culenborch.

6 Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, pp. 84-86, and n. 3 above.

7 See, for example, SpringLandscape (May), dated and
monogrammed 1587LVV (Kunsthistorisches
Museum, Vienna, inv. no. 1065). Anthonie van
Borssom, Park ofvan Johan Maurits van Nassau, oil
on canvas, 55 Vz x 78% in. (141 x 200 cm) (Kaiser
Wilhelm Museum, Krefeld, inv. no. 199).

8 Ertz 1979, no. 246. Between 1611 and 1612
Brueghel portrayed the castle in a number of
paintings in which the archdukes and their
retinue are seen enjoying the pleasures of the
countryside within sight of the castle. In the large
(73 14 x 115 in. [186 x 292 cm]) version dated 1612 at
Dijon (Ertz 1979, no. 262), the emphasis is
topographical without figures.

9 The hill was important strategically for defense
because it provided one of the few places from
which the surrounding territory could be viewed
for miles.

10 Sepp 1773, p. 85: “Aan de Westzyde heeft men
een zeer hoogen Berg, welke veeltyds bekommen
word, om van daar een der fraaiste Gezichten
over den Rhyn, als mede op de Neder-Betuwe,
en over de Rheensche Veenen te aanschouwen.”
Quoted in Washington-London-Amsterdam
2001-2, no. 17, p. 19402; partial English
translation, p. 126.

11 The stone table was constructed of a large
bluestone slab that had been found on the
mountain. The origin of the name Koningstafel
is not known. It is presumed that it referred to
Frederick V, who reportedly enjoyed the view
from this spot. Frederick and his wife, Elisabeth
Stuart (1596-1662), the sister of Charles I of
England, established residence in the
Netherlands after the Catholic troops of the
emperor deposed the couple as the Protestant
king and queen of Bohemia. In medieval times
the Heimenberg, an earthen fortress known as

a ringwall, was situated on the Grebbeberg.

12 Washington-London-Amsterdam 2001-2, no. 17.
Cuyp painted a second smaller version of the
subject. View of Rhenen with Travelers, ca. 1645,
wood, 26 1 2 * * 5 / 8 x 3 5 5 /8 in. (67.5 x 90.5 cm), private
collection, in which the travelers look in a
different direction toward Rhenen. See foldout
ill. in The Hague 1991, no. 8, p. 63.

13 The drawing is signed in the lower left corner
“v. Borssoms.” The relatively large size (9% x
17 Vz in. [139 x 445 mm]) and finished quality
of the drawing suggest that it was not done as
a preliminary sketch but probably, like the
painting, based on a now-lost sketch made on
location.

14 Pen and brown ink, brown, blue, red, and yellow
wash, framing lines in pen and brown ink
(mostly trimmed away). Davies 2014, no. 33, p. 50.
See also a painting attributed to Anthonie van
Borssom, falsely signed J. v. Kessel (19 x 22% in.
[48.5 x 57.5 cm]), sold London, Christie’s, 7 July
2000, lot 133. Bernt 1970, vol. 2, fig. 617. For the
Grebbeberg and Konigstafel, see Schoemaker
2007, pp. i7off. I am grateful to Laurens
Schoemaker for directing me to his book and to
the painting sold at Christie’s.

4 Bosschaert (back to entry)

1 See Technical Report. The lower right corner of
the copper panel, including the date, is damaged
and heavily restored.

2 Frederik van Schurman, a Protestant, left

Antwerp and moved to Cologne, where he was
raised to nobility by the emperor. He later moved
to Utrecht, where he apparently knew Bosschaert.

Van Schurman was in The Hague in 1621 and died
in Franeker, Friesland, in 1623. He is best known
as the father of Anna Maria van Schurman
(1607-1678). The first woman to attend a

European university (Utrecht), she was a painter,
engraver, poet, and noted scholar, who argued in
her publications for the education of women.

225

3 Bredius 1913, p. 138: “Mijn vader Ambrosius
Bosschaert is gesturven in Schravenhage in ’t jaer
als den 12 jarigen Trebes uut was, doch was
woonachtig binnen Breda maer near den Hage
getrocken om een blompot te leveren die hij
hadde gemaeckt voor de bottelier van Sijn
Hoochheyt daervoor hij dusent gulden hadde
bedongen ende is aldaer sieck geworden ten huyse
van joncker Schuermans, vader van Anna Maria
Schuermans ende aldaer gesturven ende in
Schravenhage begraven, tot droefheyt van veel
liefhebbers.”

4 The painting may be Bouquet of Flowers in a Glass
Vase, signed and dated 1621, oil on copper, 12 7 Ae x
8 Vz in. (31.6 x 21.6 cm). National Gallery of Art,
Washington, DC, inv. no. 1996.35.1. The reverse of
the painting includes the inscription joncker, the
term Maria Bosschaert used to refer to Van
Schurman. The reference to the artist’s death in
the inscription on an illusionistic plaque attached
to the front of the table, “C’est l’Angelicq main du
gra[n]d Peindre de Flore AMBROSE, renomme
jusqu’au Riuage Mort” (It is the angelic hand of
the great painter of flowers, Ambrosius, renowned
even to the banks of death), further suggests that
the painting was the one Bosschaert took to The
Hague just before his death, and that the
inscription was added later by another artist. For a
discussion of this painting, see Wheelock Online
Editions.

5 Thorn prunts are formed by large glass drops
broadly melted on the glass and pulled out to a
point.

6 Goedde 1989, p. 38. The other still lifes set against
a landscape or only an open sky are (1) Vase with
Flowers in a Window, ca. 1618, oil on wood, 25 H x

18 Vs in. (64 x 46 cm) (Mauritshuis. The Hague, inv.
no. 679; Bol i960, no. 37); (2) Bouquet of Flowers, oil
on copper, 8 5 /s x 6 7 /s in. (22 x 17.5 cm) (Musee du
Louvre, Paris, inv. no. RF1984-150; Bol i960, no.
38); (3) Still Life of Roses in a Berkemeijer Glass, with
Butterflies and a Snail, in an Arched Stone Window with
a Landscape Beyond, oil on copper, 11 x 9 V 4 in. (28 x
23.5 cm) (private collection. United States; Bol
i960, no. 44); (4) Roemer with Roses in an Arched
Window, oil on copper, 12 34 x 9 in. (31 x 23 cm)
(private collection; Bol i960, no. 45); and (5)

Roemer with Roses in an Arched Window, oil on copper,
11 x 9 in. (28 x 23 cm) (Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo
Collection).

7 Bosschaert’s first paintings of a bouquet placed in
a niche date from his Utrecht period, when he was
in contact with Roelandt Savery. Bosschaert
introduced the view of the distant river landscape
after he moved to Breda in late 1619, the date of
the Carter painting.

8 Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 9 (1953), no. 24,24% x
17% in. (620 x 45 mm) and Hollstein 1993-, vol. 2
(i 994 ) 5 no. 242. Illustrated in San Francisco-
Baltimore-London 1997-98, p. 358, fig. 2; and
Segal 1990, p. 49. A less convincing source is
mentioned in Los Angeles-Boston-New York
1981-82, p. 18, in which the authors suggest the
inspiration “was a remarkable, enigmatic picture
by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, the Two Chained Apes

of 1562 [y 7 /s x 9 in. (20 x 23 cm), Gemaldegalerie,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 2077] ... in

which monkeys are placed in a stone window
through which a view of Antwerp can be seen.”

9 In a letter to his patron Cardinal Borromeo,
Bosschaert’s contemporary Jan Brueghel the Elder
claimed that he had painted the bouquet of
flowers totally from nature without the aid of
drawings, capturing the likeness of each flower as
it bloomed over the course of four months.
Brueghel’s claim may be documented by his
painting in which Flora paints a large flower still
life while referring to individual blossoms placed
in a vase on a table, which does not, however,
duplicate the still life on the easel (Pictura in a
Painter’s Studio, formerly with Johnny van Haeften,
London). If Brueghel did indeed paint the
individual flowers directly from life as they
bloomed, this was probably the exception, since
he comments that he worked without the aid of
drawings. Breninkmeijer de Rooij 1996, pp. 6iff.

10 Wheelock (Washington 1999, p. 28) reported
finding pouncing in a number of images in a
copy of Crispin van de Passe’s Hortus Floridus at
the Folger Library. See also Wallert 1999, Murray
and Groen 1994, and Groen and Murray 1991.

11 Emanuel Sweerts, who sold rare bulbs, shells, and
other exotica, published Florilegium, a catalogue
without text to advertise plants for sale at the
Frankfurt fair in 1612. Sweerts’s organization of
the plants in family groups broke from the
typical seasonal arrangements and marked a step
toward the scientific categorization of plants that
would not be defined until the early eighteenth
century. Images in both the seventeenth-century
collector’s albums and stock books contrast
dramatically with the two-dimensional woodcut
illustrations in herbals, which were often, if

not generally, drawn from pressed rather than
recently cut flowers. Bosschaert, whose eldest
daughter, Maria (1605-1636), married Emanuel
Sweerts’s son Hieronymus Sweerts (ca. 1603-1636)
in Amsterdam in 1627, presumably knew the dealer.

12 Van de Passe 1614. Although Crispijn van de
Passe II was the primary author, the book was
a collaborative effort that included work by his
father and brothers, who were also artists and
printmakers. Like Sweerts’s book. Van de Passe’s
incorporated some prints from previous
publications.

13 See, for example, the beautiful set of gouache
drawings of individual tulips known as The Great
Tulip Book at the Norton Simon Museum,
Pasadena, inv. no. M.1974.08.005.D.

14 The large prints were arranged in the album
according to the seasons in which the flowers
bloomed. The final publication was sold in two
versions, either black-and-white or hand-colored.
In 1613 a black-and-white copy could be acquired
for 35 florins; a hand-colored version cost 500
florins. Barker 1994, p. 16.

15 Penissi2oo7-

16 Lobelius was a physician in Middelburg as well
as physician to William I, prince of Orange, and
later to James I of England.

17 Before his appointment to the newly established
position of Horti Praefectus at the University of
Leiden in 1593, Clusius had established the

Imperial Botanic Garden in Vienna, served as
adviser to Wilhelm IV, landgrave of Hesse, and
published a book on the flora of the Iberian
peninsula, Rariorum Aliquot Stipium. ... (1576). He
was responsible for introducing and distributing
many new plants from Africa and the Americas
and especially bulbs from Asia: crown imperials,
irises, hyacinths, anemones, ranunculi, narcissi,
and lilies, as well as tulips. For Gemmingen, see
Reithmeier 2010.

18 Dr. Adriaen Pauw (1581-1653), grand pensionary
of Amsterdam (1631-36), whose son was a consul
in Turkey, grew nothing but Semper Augustus
on his estate in Heemstede and jealously
guarded its propagation. Pavord 1999, p. 133.

19 Quoted in Brenninkmeyer-de Rooi 1996, p. 49.

20 Bosschaert first introduced the yellow fritillaria
in Bouquet of Flowers in a Stone Niche, 1618, oil on
copper, 21% x 15 Vz in. (55.5 x 39.5 cm), Statens
Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, inv. no.
KMSsp2ii.

21 Initially identified by Bergstrom 1956, p. 65.

22 Pliny 1961-68, vol. 9 (1968), p. 309 (36.59-65).

23 See, for example, Los Angeles-Boston-New York
1981-82, p. 17, where biblical verses associating
the brief life of flowers with vanitas are often
cited, including Isaiah 40:6, “All flesh is grass, all
the goodliness thereof is as the flowers of the
field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth;
because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it.”
On p. i9n6, the authors note, “The verse from
Isaiah 40 is inscribed below an etching by Claes
Jansz. Visscher of 1635, probably after a painting
of about 1600.” Miinster-Baden-Baden 1979-80,
p. 320, fig. 175.

24 Visscher 1614, emblem V. Emblem IV, illustrated
by shells, observes disdainfully, “It’s disgusting
where a fool leaves his money” (Tis missellijck
waer een geek zijn gelt aen leyt). Regarding the
tulip, see Schama 1987, pp. 350-66; and Pavord
1999.

25 The reference to transience and vanity is, for
example, explicit in Jacob de Gheyn’s Vanitas Still
Life, 1603 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art,

New York, inv. no. 1974.1), which includes a
single tulip in a vase with Spanish coins, a skull,
and a bubble. An inscription on a flower still life
in a glass attributed to Jan Brueghel the Elder
formerly with Richard Green, London, includes
a cartouche in which is written: “Wat kyckt ghy
op dees blom die u soo schone schynt / En door
des sonnen cracht seer lichtelyck verdwindt /

Ledt op godts woordt alleen dwelck eeuwich
bloeyen siet / Waerin verkeert de rest werelts dan.
In niet.” (How closely you regard this flower
which seems to you so fair / It fades away so
easily in the sun’s strong glare / Be mindful of
the word of God which alone blooms eternally /
Then to what does the rest the world turn? To
nothing.) Quoted from De Jongh 1982, p. 37ni2,
ill. IV on p. 31.

26 Sweerts 1976 (1612), pp. xi-xii.

27 Barker 1994, p. 13.

226

Both ack to entry)

1 The composition is repeated in reverse in Both’s
etching River Crossing, Bartsch 8.

2 De Bie 1661 (1971), inscription under Both’s
portrait.

3 Sandrart 1675-79 (1925), p. 185, notes: “in den
Landschaften die Manier des beruhmten Claudi
Lorrennes.” Regarding Both’s paintings for the
Buen Retiro, Madrid, 1640-41, see Burke 1976, pp.
80-101, and Rothlisberger 1961, vol. 1, pp. 155-61.

4 Oil on canvas, 39 H x 49 H in. (100 x 125 cm).
Rothlisberger 1961, vol. 1, no. 232, fig. 96.

5 In New York 1985, no. 8, the authors distinguish
between the use of the bridge by the two artists,
noting that bridges in Claude’s paintings are
placed to give horizontal emphasis, whereas in
Both’s paintings, the bridge is placed on a
diagonal.

6 For Andries Both, see Waddingham 1964 and
Burke 1976.

7 See, for example, Italian Landscape with
Draughtsman, 1650-52, oil on canvas, 73% x

94 Vi in. (187 x 240 cm), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,
inv. no. SK-C-109.

8 Ann Sutherland Harris in New York 1985, p. 7803.

9 Sandrart 1675-79 (1925), p. 184: “Ein andermal
sind wir, Pousin, Claudi Lorenes und ich,
Landschafen nach dem Leben zu mahlen oder zu
zeichnen auf Tivoli geritten, da dann auf der
Ruckreise aus Sorge eines einbrechenden Regens
Bambatio, unwifiend unser, vor uns heim
geritten.”

10 No drawing of the scene by Both is known.

A drawing representing the scene formerly
attributed to him is now considered a copy after
his work by Willem de Heusch (1625-1692), who
knew Both in Utrecht after both men had
returned from Italy: pen and ink with wash,

7 7 /s x 11% in. (200 x 300 mm). Sale Paul Brandt,
Amsterdam, 5 Apr. 1944, lot 41, where it is
incorrectly identified as Ponte Molle. Last known
owner, P. L. Mulder.

11 The bridge is represented in its proper orientation
in, for example, two very large paintings in

the Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome, by Gaspard
Dughet (1615-1675) (Boisclair 1986, no. 114, fig. 155),
and by Bartolommeo Torreggiani (1590-1675),
in the Accademia San Luca, Rome.

12 Faucheux 1857 (1969), p. 41, no. 6: “Ponte logano
viccino d Trivoly [includes view of Tomb of the
Plautii], Israel Silvestre incidit cum Privuilegio
Regis, 155 x 74.” The print is one of a suite of
twenty-one Vues d’ltalie by Silvestre. It is
incorrectly identified as “Veiie du Pont
Lamentano proche de Tivoli.” Born in Nancy,
France, by 1634-35 Silvestre was in Paris, where
he was the student of his uncle Israel Henriet (ca.
1590-1661). The younger artist was in Italy
between 1638 and 1641 and again from about 1643
to 1653.

13 New York 1985, pp. 77-79.

14 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 22,
fig. 2. Both, Landscape with River, ca. 1645-50,

oil on canvas, 41 x 4 6V1 in. (104.2 x 118.2 cm), sale,
Rome, Finarte, 3 Dec. 2009, lot 69, formerly
David G. Carter (no relation to Edward Carter)

collection. New Haven. HdG 1907-28, vol. 9
(1926), no. 94; Burke 1976, no. 76, as Landscape
with River [and Ponte Molle?], purchased from the
Schaeffer Gallery, New York, 1957.

15 HdG 1907-28, vol. 9 (1926), no. 89; Burke 1976,
under no. 76, as a copy. The painting was
formerly in the Lansdowne collection, London,
and later with the dealer Bruno Meissner, Zurich.
It was sold as A Southern River Landscape, oil on
canvas, 37% x 43% in. (95.5 x 111 cm) by a
follower of Both at Sotheby’s, London, 19 Feb.
1986, lot 54. The painting repeats the landscape
and includes the draftsman and his companion
but represents different figures in the right
foreground.

16 Burke 1976, pp. 226-27, regarding the replica
formerly owned by David Carter, identifies two
works by De Heusch that are variations of the
same composition: a drawing in the Museum
Kunstpalast, Diisseldorf, inv. no. FP 5224 (Schaar
1968); and the painting ItalianLandscape at Sunset,
1660-92, oil on copper, 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 /s x 11 14 in. (22 x 28.5 cm),
signed GDHeusch (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,
inv. no. SK-A-149). Heusch sometimes used
Guglielmo, thus the G in the initials.

De Bray (back to entry)

1 Ben Broos in The Hague-San Francisco 1990-91,
p. 189, citing the comments about another
painting in Segal 1982, p. 51, suggests that the
ruddy glow of the painting refers to twilight, the
frontier between day and night.

2 In many areas the green pigments have changed
to a rusty brown tonality. See Technical Report.

7 Van de Cappelle (back to entry)

1 The leeboards on either side of the yacht helped to
reduce its drift. The short, oval leeboards of yachts
and other inland watercraft differed from the long,
narrow ones used for seagoing vessels. Pivoted at
the forward end at deck level, the board on the lee
side is lowered when sailing. Rotterdam-Berlin
1996-97, p. 34.

2 States barges were large rowboats with square
sterns that were used for ferrying dignitaries
from vessel to vessel or from land to ship and vice
versa. The passengers sat on benches on the
afterdeck, sometimes under a shelter near the
helmsman. The barge depicted by Van de
Cappelle has painted decorations on the gunwales.
The sterns of states barges were also often painted
or carved. Barges were standard equipment of
merchant vessels in the seventeenth century.
Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97, p. 31.

3 I am grateful to Elisabeth Spits at the Nederlands
Scheepvaartmuseum, Amsterdam, for her help in
identifying the location and the ships.

4 The gaff, “a straight or curved spar serves to
extend the head of a fore-and-aft sail. The gaff is
hoisted by halyards.” Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97,

P* 34 *

5 The horizontal alignment and vertical reflections
of the fishermen in the boat at the left and
standing in the shallows on the right, like the
sailboats on either side of the horizon, contribute
to the perception of balance and calm.

6 The introduction to his inventory states (in
translation from the Dutch), “In praise of the art
of Jan van de Cappelle who taught himself to
paint out of his own desire” (Russell 1975, p. 48).
The inventory drawn up between 4 January and
13 August 1680 was originally published by Bredius
1892, pp. 31-40. Russell 1975, pp. 48-57, published
a list in translation of the paintings and drawings,
as well as a summary of other sections. The
impressive collection included 200 paintings and
more than 6,000 drawings, among which were
1,350 drawings by Simon de Vlieger, 900 drawings
by Hendrick Avercamp, and 600 drawings by

Jan van Goyen, as well as numerous works by Jan
Porcellis, all artists who shared Van de Cappelle’s
fascination with the atmospheric effects of light
and reflections. A number of paintings by
De Vlieger and Porcellis are described in the
inventory as “greys.” For example, “A Quiet river
scene, in greys, by Jan Porcellis” (Russell 1975, no.
38, p. 50). In the Parlor or Green Room a painting
is noted as “A small seascape by the Deceased,
after Porcellis” (Russell 1975, no. 116, p. 53).

7 C. P. van Eeghen 2011, p. 212; Kelch 1971, pp. 9,122;
and Russell 1975, pp. 2iff.

8 The inventory of Van de Cappelle’s possessions
made at the time of his death includes a yacht.

ClaeSZ. (back to entry)

1 For the earlier tradition, see Osias Beert the Elder,
Dishes with Oysters, Fruit, and Wine, ca. 1620-25
(National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. no.
i995-32.i), and Floris Claesz. van Dijck , Still Life
with Fruit, Nuts, and Cheese, 1613 (Frans Hals
Museum, Haarlem, inv. no. os I-76).

2 Senenko 2009, p. 580: “The date on this painting
has previously been read as 1642, but it can be
read quite clearly as 1646.”

3 The painting is signed with a monogram and
dated on the right, beside the table: P. C.Ao.
Amsterdam 2007, no. 46, pp. 103-4.

4 In addition to the paintings in Moscow and
Amsterdam, closely related still lifes by Claesz.
dated 1647 are in the Kunsthalle Bremen (inv. no.
325-1911/9), in the Szepmuveszeti Muzeum,
Budapest (inv. no. 1026), and in the State
Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (inv. no.
1046).

5 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 38, referring to Pieter de la
Court, The True Interest and Political Maxims of the
Republick of Holland and West Friesland (London,
1702) and Interest van Holland, ofte,gronden van
Hollands-welvaren (Amsterdam, 1662).

6 For salt, see Hochstrasser 2007, pp. 160-71.

7 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 163. The citation comes from
the concluding lines of Cats’s poem in the chapter
on salt in Van Beverwyck 1636, p. 179.

227

8 According to Hochstrasser 2007, pp. 163-64, until
1500 salt was extracted from Dutch soil through a
process called darinkdelven, which Van Beverwyck
1636, p. 179, describes in his chapter on salt: “Here
in our land earlier there used to be no salt in use,
except that dug out of the earth along the sea.
They burned the earth to ashes, and making a lye
out of this with warm water, drew out very white
and shiny salt, which they called zel or zilt-zout”
This process, which was carried out especially in
Zeeland and Friesland, contributed to the
disastrous Saint Elizabeth’s flood of 1421, which
drowned large parts of southern Holland. In 1515
Charles V forbade the digging of turf except for
personal use. Jacob van Ruisdael (1628/29-1682)
represents people harvesting salt in Banks of a
River, 1649 (University of Edinburgh, on loan to
the National Gallery of Scotland). The Salt Islands,
off the west coast of Africa, which were discovered
by Zeeland shippers in 1528, became a major
source of salt for Europe.

9 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 166. The salt trade in the
West Indies began about 1600, when the Dutch
discovered a great salt sea on Punta de Araya,
Venezuela. The salt sea was formed by a
continuous natural process and had the added
advantage of being free.

10 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 72, notes that the
importation of lemons to the Netherlands began
after the sea trade with the Mediterranean was
well established. The transportation of citrus
over the Alps from Italy was difficult because the
fruit could not be exposed to temperatures
below 50C (410F).

9 Coorte (back to entry)

1 Coorte introduced the tabletop motif in his
paintings in 1685. Regarding the use of a template,
see Bijl et al. 2008.

2 The Hague 2008, p. 57, notes that two-thirds of
Coorte’s oeuvre is painted on paper; thirty-one
paintings on paper are pasted to wood panels and
seven to canvas.

3 The Hague 2008, pp. 57,60, citing correspondence
from Martin Bijl.

4 Oil on paper mounted on wood, 10x 8 % in.

(26.9 x 20.4 cm). The Hague 2008, no. 16.

5 See, for example. Still Life with a Spray of Gooseberries,
1705, oil on canvas, 1214 x 9H in. (31 x 23.5 cm),
private collection; The Hague 2008, no. 58.

6 See Technical Report. Coorte may have intended
to paint the strawberries in a crockery bowl.

7 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 39.

8 The Hague 2008, no. 54, oil on canvas, 11% x 9 in.
(29.5 x 22.8 cm). New York, Ivor Foundation, and
no. 55, oil on canvas, 11% x 8% in. (30 x 22.6 cm),
private collection.

9 Rinaldi 1989, pp. 154,139.

10 See, for example. Still Life with a Bowl of
Strawberries, 1704, oil on paper mounted on
canvas, ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 /s x 9 in. (29.5 x 23 cm), private
collection, Germany; The Hague 2008, no. 52.

11 Quoted in The Hague 2008, p. 61, from Wilhelmus
Beurs, Degroote waereld in’t kleen geschildert,

of schilderagtig tafereel van ’5 weerelds schilderijen ...
verklarende de hooftveren .... (Amsterdam, 1692),
p-143.

12 The Hague 2008, p. 61.

13 See, for example, Still-Life with Strawberries,
Asparagus and Grapes (Michaelis Collection, Cape
Town; Buvelot 2008, fig. 20), which resembles
Coorte’s early paintings such as Bowl with
Strawberries, Gooseberries and Asparagus on a Stone
Ledge with Draped Velvet Cloth, 1685, private
collection (The Hague 2008, no. 5).

14 See, for example, Abraham van Calraet, Still Life
with Peaches, oil on panel, 13 x 10% in. (33 x 28 cm).
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam,
inv. no. 1394 (OK).

15 Het Utrechts Archief, Archive Familie Des
Tombe, inventory no. 26, inv. no. 847, dated
24 September 1780, probate inventory of the
possessions of Jacob van Citters and his son Jacob
Verheije van Citters, Kasteel Poppekensburg, p. 1,
item 8: “Een Bloem Stuck door Coorde te
Vlissingen.” Getty Provenance Index, Archival
Inventories Database, N-1744 (Citters), also cited
by The Hague 2008, p. 121.

16 The Hague 2008, p. 18, cites Bol 1977, pp. 4-5,

3h 63.

Cuyp (back to entry)

1 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 10, pp.
40-45, dates the painting early to mid-i6sos. More
recently, Washington-London-Amsterdam 2001-2,
no. 41, dates it late 1650s.

2 Waagen 1854, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 110. After seeing the
painting in Lord Ashburton’s collection, Waagen
wrote, “The composition itself has something
more noble and poetical than is usual with [Cuyp];
to this is added a rare power and an energy of
foreground with the most delicate gradation of
the clear tones to the warm evening sky, so that
the picture is one of the most beautiful that ever
came from the hand of this master.”

3 During the nineteenth century, when nationalist
interests emphasized the differences between
Catholic Belgium and the Protestant Netherlands,
religious subjects were not generally expected in
Dutch paintings.

4 Frankfurt-Edinburgh-London 2006, no. 36.

5 Bartsch 53,55, and 56.

6 Hendrik Goudt, The Flight into Egypt, 1613,
engraving (Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 8 [1953],
no. 3). The print had widespread influence.

7 In addition to the Carter painting and that at the
Metropolitan Museum (see above), a third
painting is attributed to Cuyp, Flight into Egypt, oil
on wood, 40 Vi x 60 Ya in. (105 x 153 cm), formerly
Goudstikker, Amsterdam (sale, Berlin, 12 Mar.
1941, lot 28), reproduced in Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82, p. 43, fig. 3. Its current location
is unknown.

8 Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, p. 140, describing the
Metropolitan’s painting: “The beautiful Flight
into Egypt from the Carter Collection (Los Angeles
County Museum) could be described as a larger
and more elaborate version of the present work.
And while the two paintings date from about the
same time, one would imagine that the Carter
picture is the slightly later.”

11 Van Goyen ck to entry)

1 See H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), nos. 290-319.

2 The city became an island in 1421, when the Saint
Elizabeth’s flood drowned large parts of southern
Holland, killing more than one hundred thousand
people. It is bordered today by the Oude Maas,
the Benede Merwede, the Nieuwe Merwede, the
Hollands Diep, and the Dordtsche Kil.

3 In 1220 William I, count of Holland, granted city
rights to Dordrecht, making it the oldest city in
Holland. It was also the city where in 1572
representatives of all Dutch cities gathered to
declare independence from Spain and
acknowledge William of Orange as leader of the
Dutch state—beginning the Eighty Years’ War.

4 The Synod of Dort met to resolve the theological
dispute between orthodox Calvinists and the
Arminians, liberal Calvinists led by Johan
Wytenbogaert (1557-1644) that had brought the
country to the brink of civil war. Ultimately the
Arminians (later known as Remonstrants) were
defeated, resulting in the formation of the
Dordrecht Confession of Faith. Evelyn 1983, p. 15.

5 J. De Vries 1981, p. 57. Daily sailings were also
available between Rotterdam and Walcheren and
from both cities to Antwerp. Veere, one of four
harbors on Walcheren, was first visited by Scottish
merchants in 1439. By 1505 they had established it
as their court from which they conducted trade
with Europe.

6 J. De Vries 1981, p. 59.

7 View of Dordrecht, p. 72, from the Dresden Sketchbook,
ca. 1648, black chalk on paper, sVs x 7V2 in. (130 x
190 mm). H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 1 (1972), no. 846,
p. 271, and no. 846/72^ p. 278.

8 The beurtvaart tows a small rowboat, probably
used as a lifeboat; the barrel served as ballast to
keep the rowboat from overturning.

9 Braun and Hogenberg 1572-1617 (2008), p. 156.

10 J. Michael Montias (Montias 1987 and 1990) was
the first to recognize that the introduction of a
technique using thin paint applied in a swift and
straightforward manner was stimulated by
lowered costs, which made it possible for Van
Goyen and others to work for a broader market.
Sluijter 1999 (2009) recognizes that the technical
innovations should also be seen in terms of the
artist’s desire for fame and profit and the
importance attached to the appearance of
naturalness. He attributes the introduction of
the loose technique to the influx of immigrants
from the Southern Netherlands, where it had
already been practiced in the sixteenth century.
Writing in 1604, Karel van Mander mentions a
number of artists from the Southern Nether¬
lands who painted in a swift manner and were
much admired by art lovers (Sluijter 1999 [2009],
P-7)-

11 Sluijter 1999 (2009).

12 Jan Jansz. Orlers and Jan Pietersz. Dou,
Beschrijvinge derstad Leyden: Inhoudende’t Begin, Den
Voortgang, Ende Den Wasdom Der Selver ...:In Desen
Tweeden Druck, Boven Vele Vermeerderingen, Vergroot
Met Een Derde Deel, Inhoudende Den StaetEnde
Regeringe DerStad Ley den.... (1614; Leiden, 1641),

p. 373, quoted in Sluijter 1999 (2009), p. 11.

228

12 Van Goycn ck to entry)

1 The lower part of the date was lost when the panel
was cut. See Technical Report.

2 Regarding Van Goyen’s views of Arnhem, see H.-U.
Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), nos. 272-89. The view
from the river is represented by no. 275, View of
Arnhem across the Rhine from the South West, signed
and dated 1642, oil on wood, 15 14 x 18% in. (38.7 x
47.5 cm), with David M. Koetser, Ziirich, 1968.

3 In 1684 John Locke (1632-1704) noted that it took
“5I125st” to travel by wagon from Arnhem to
Zutphen. Van Strien 1993, p. 316. According to Van
Strien 1993, pp. 76-77, the post wagon, which was
pulled by two horses and could take four
passengers, traveled 7-8 kilometers per hour. The
trip required the horses to be changed six times
between the two cities.

4 H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), no. 272.

5 H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), nos. 282 and 283,
respectively.

6 Van Strien 1998, p. 79, quoting John Farrington,
“An Account of a Journey through Holland,
Frizeland, Westphalia, etc., in Severall Letters to
Mr. N. H.,” British Library, London, MS Add.
15570, fols. 246-47. Farrington’s visit to Arnhem
took place on 17 November 1710.

7 An unattributed view of Arnhem, possibly by Van
Goyen, appears in the 1688 inventory of the estate
of Jacob Danckers de Rij, an Amsterdam resident,
whose connection to Arnhem, if any, is not known.
Getty Provenance Index, Archival Inventories
Database, N-241.

13 Heda (back to entry)

1 Filipczaki995.

2 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 176, quoting Wim Klooster,
Illicit Riches: Dutch Trade in the Caribbean, 1648-1795,
Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-, en
Volkenkunde-Dutch Institute of Linguistics and
Anthropology, Caribbean series 18 (Leiden, 1998),
p. 189, notes that by about 1700, seven to eight
million pounds of tobacco arrived from Virginia
and Maryland in one year.

3 Regarding tobacco, see Schama 1987, pp. 193-201,
203-8,210-15; Gaskell 1987; and Hochstrasser
2007, pp. 171-87.

4 Gaskell 1987, p. 121. Dodoens was court physician
to Rudolf II and later professor of medicine at the
University of Leiden. His herbal Cruydeboeck was
published in 1554 with 715 images. Next to the
Bible it was the most translated book of the
period.

5 The Hague 1991a, no. 67, pp. 103-4. Petrus
Scriverius, Saturnalia oftepoetisch vasten-avond spel,
vervatende hetgebruyk en misbruyk vanden taback,
trans. Samuel Ampzing (Haarlem, 1630).

6 The pipe on the right is probably not actually
broken but a shorter version. What may have
previously been interpreted as the broken-off end
of the pipe next to the brazier appears, instead, to
be a single zwavelstick used for lighting the pipe
from the brazier.

7 The Hague 1991a, no. 67, p. 104. The painting,
Vanitas Still Life, 1630-40, oil on wood, 13 x 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 /s in.
(33 x 41.5 cm), private collection, is illustrated in
color in Basel 1987, no. 29, where it is attributed to
Pieter Claesz. It is not, however, included in
Brunner-Bulst 2004.

8 Noting that the closed watch is rare in a still life,
the authors of Los Angeles-Boston-New York
1981-82, pp. 52-53, comment, “The watch...
might also suggest temperance, the careful
regulation of life and its appetites, as it does in
other Dutch paintings... the closed watch serves
as a kind of metaphor for the artist’s method of
concealing the eternal and inevitable truth
behind the appearances of the everyday world.”

9 Watches in vanitas paintings are typically open
and have a ribbon and key attached to them, as in
Abraham van Beyeren’s Banquet Still Life, dated
1667 (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, inv. no.
M.86.96).

10 Sutton 1992, no. 15.

11 Van Beverwijck 1636.

12 Gaskell 1987, pp. 133-34.

13 Gaskell 1987, p. 124; Hochstrasser 2007, p. 184.
The less-refined and cheaper short-stem pipes
continued to be smoked by the lower classes.

14 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 182. The manufacture of
pipes in Gouda was introduced by English
mercenaries in 1614. The complicated process of
producing a pipe, involving thirty steps before
being sent to the kiln for firing, employed four
thousand workers in Gouda.

14 Van der Heyden (back to entry)

1 The other paintings are The Herengracht, Amsterdam,
oil on wood, 14% x 17% in. (36.5 x 44 cm)

(Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. R.F. 2340); Houses
on the Herengracht, oil on wood, 14% x 17 14 in.

( 37-5 x 44-4 cm) (Waddesdon Manor, inv. no. 2560);
and fig. 14.2.

2 Wallert 2006-7, pp- 93~96, fig. la, b; and
Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7, no* H, pp* 136-38,
%• i-

3 Van der Heyden may have developed this
procedure as a glasschrijver (glass painter/engraver),
the profession in which he received his initial
training.

4 Van der Heyden created the light effects on the
water with a series of short and parallel horizontal
strokes through which the underpaint is visible.

5 Houbraken 1718-21 (1976), vol. 3, p. 81; translation
from Wallert 2006-7, p- 98.

6 Quoted in Wallert 2006-7, P- 98.

7 I. H. van Eeghen 1973, p. 133.

8 Wallert 2006-7, pp- 98-101.

9 Wallert 2006-7, p. 98.

10 H. Schwarz 1966, p. 177, noted that Van der
Heyden “seems to have made systematic use of
the camera [obscura] in painting his city views
with their sharp foreshortenings.” Wagner 1971,
pp. 59-62, however, doubts his use of the camera
obscura and says (p. 60) that there is no evidence
in Van der Heyden’s drawings of his use of the
device. L. de Vries 1984, pp. 59-62, also doubts
his use of the camera obscura, citing evidence of
one-point perspective.

11 Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7, P- 70.

12 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 56-57.

13 The following information regarding the
buildings and their owners is based on Vier
Eeuwen Herengracht 1976, pp. 455-61.

14 Unlike the Sonnewyzer Huis, the Bartolotti Huis
has not been altered. In 1670 it belonged to
Guillielmo Bartolotti (1618-1674), the head of the
Bartolotti banking house. The house had been
built in 1615-20 as a single residence for Willem
de Heuvel (d. 1634), who adopted the name
Bartolotti after inheriting a fortune from his
Italian uncle.

15 Frederick served as raad (councilman) in 1657-65
and scout (sheriff) of Amsterdam in 1658, and
hoofdingeland (major landowner within an
endyked area) of the Beemster. In 1637 he
married Agatha Geelvinck (1617-1638), daughter
of Jan Cornelis Geelvinck of number 174.
Following her death, he married Eva Bicker in
1640.

16 Moesign.

17 See A. Walsh (forthcoming).

18 See Provenance and n. 1 there.

19 Evelyn 1983, p. 22.

15,16 Hobbema (back to entries)

1 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 59-60.

2 Bode 1907, p. 150, quoted in translation in Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 61.

3 Oil on canvas, 46% x 56% in. (119 x 143.7 cm),
signed lower right.

4 Stechow 1959, p. 13.

17 Van HuySlim (back to entry)

1 The decoration of terracotta vases is different in
each painting. Although they relate generically to
designs by the Flemish sculptor Frangois
Duquesnoy (ca. 1594-1643), they were probably
conceived by Van Huysum himself. Lot 89 in the
Braamcamp catalogue (Bille 1961, vol. 2, p. 21)
notes that the bas-relief was painted by J. de Wit,
a reference to Jacob de Wit.

2 De Lairesse 1738 (1712), p. 628. The inclusion of
“Eenige Modellen van Bloemstukken” (lots 125,
126; several models of flower pieces) in the context
of what appears to be the sale of furniture in Van
Huysum’s studio in 1749 may refer to drawings or,
possibly, artificial flowers.

3 Dezallier d’Argenville 1745-52, vol. 3 (1752), p. 318,
noted in Delft-Houston 2006-7, P- 16.

4 Quoted in translation in Dik and Wallert 1998,
p.401.

5 “Van Huysum painted his flower and fruit pieces
for a long time on dark grounds, on which in his
opinion, they would make a better impression.
Everybody praised these pieces as excellent, as
unsurpassable. Then our ten Kate candidly
revealed an opposite opinion. He recommended
to keep the backgrounds light, in order to give
them a better impression. Van Huysum finally
admitted to the advice of his friend. And it was
only for the advice of ten Kate that from that time
on he completely changed his manner.” Van
Eijnden and Van der Willigen 1816-40, part 1, pp.
312-13, quoted in translation by Dik and Wallert
1998, p. 398. Segal in Delft-Houston 2006-7, P- 20,
attributes the comment to Herman Tollius
(1742-1822), a scholar of Dutch literature, who
wrote in 1812.

229

6 Van Gool 1750-51 (1971), vol. 2 (1751), p. 16,
translation from Wallert 1999, p. 108.

7 Van Hoogstraten 1678, pp. 307-8, translation
from Wallert 1999, pp. 110-12.

8 Delft-Houston 2006-7, P- 45 -

9 C. Bruins, quoted by Van Gool 1750-51 (1971), vol.

2 (1751), p. 25; translation by Segal in Delft-
Houston 2006-7, P-18.

10 See Appendix, Van Huysum, n. 2.

11 Aelbert Cuyp portrayed Huist Meerdervoort in at
least two paintings: The Avenue at Meerdervoort, ca.
1651 (Wallace Collection, London, inv. no. P51),
and Equestrian Portrait of Cornelis and Michiel Pompe
van Meerdervoort with Their Tutor and Coachman
(“Startingfor the Hunt”) (The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 32.100.20).

The house is also represented in a black chalk and
gray wash drawing by Roelant Roghman
(1627-1692), Huis te Meerdervoort, near Dordrecht,
1647 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, inv. no. 2001.636); Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, p. 144,
fig. 29.

12 Segal in Delft-Houston 2006-7, P-19, notes that
Van Huysum probably sold paintings directly to
his associates, such as Lambert ten Kate, Jan
Gildemeester Jansz., and Gerrit Braamcamp, as
well as Sybrand Feitama II (1694-1758). In 1751
Van Gool 1750-51 (1971), vol. 2 (1751), p. 19,
mentions that Braamcamp had only five works
by Van Huysum: “four excellent works, in
addition a beautiful landscape” (vier uit-
muntende stukken, benevens een schoon
Lantschap). The Carter painting may have been
one of these four. Van Gool does not mention
Pompe van Meerdevoort in his identification of
important collectors of paintings by the artist.

13 Of these (Bille 1961, vol. 2, nos. 90-92, pp. 22-22a),
no. 92 (collection of the Duchess of Westminster,
Eaton Hall) is set against a landscape. The second
painting, no. 91, which is set against a black
background, is in the collection of the Museum
of Fine Arts, Houston: Still Life of Flowers and Fruit,
ca. 1715, oil on wood, 31 14 x 23% in. (79.4 x 60.3
cm), inv. no. 98.80.

14 Bille 1961, vol. 1, p. 80.

15 De Lairesse 1738 (1712) mentioned in numerous
places in his chapters on architecture and
landscape, in which he discusses the appropriate¬
ness of different paintings for different locations,
the importance of having the light and
perspective in pictures appear as natural to the
setting.

16 Priemi997.

17 According to his obituary in the New York Times,

1 Jan. 1986, Arthur Hartog was a former vice
chairman of the Dutch and British conglomerate
Unilever, 1938-39 and 1946-51. On 7 December
1941, while traveling in the Dutch East Indies, he
was taken prisoner by the Japanese in Hong
Kong. He was held for seven months in a prison
camp until exchanged with other Allied
nationals for Japanese prisoners. In 1951 he
moved to the United States, where he lived in
retirement and died in 1986. The formal
declaration of the Netherlands Art Property
Foundation (Stichting Nederlandisch Kunstbezit,
SNK), The Hague, inv. no. 148, states that the

eight paintings were returned by the SNK to
Arthur Hartog, London, March 1948, noting that
the paintings had been taken to be sold at
auction through Van Marie en Bignell in The
Hague (unidentified sale). The sale of the eight
paintings realized 250,000 florins. Deducting the
cost of the sale, 5,690.50 florins, the net proceeds
of that forced sale were 244,319.50 florins: 50,000
florins were paid to the account of A. Hartog, a
sum that he was required to pay to the SNK in
Amsterdam in March 1948, when the paintings
were subsequently returned to him.

Kalf (back to

1 The painting was sold anonymously by Noortman
Master Paintings, Maastricht, at Sotheby’s, New
York, 28 Jan. 2010, lot 192.

2 Meijer in Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, P- 76m.
Referred to as peerdevoeten lepels, the utensils were
apparently inspired by older Italian examples,
deriving ultimately from ancient Roman
precedents. Klijn 1987, pp. 82,88,95,96,97. The
silver bowl is actually the base of a round box
surrounded by chased figures in niches.
Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, P- 74 , misidentified
the lid of the box as a drinking vessel. The correct
identification was made in the sale catalogue
when the painting was sold at Sotheby’s, New
York, 28 Jan. 2010, lot 192.

3 Willem Kalf, Still Life with ChafingDish and Glass
Ewer, oil on wood, 17% x 25 14 in. (45.5 x 64 cm),
signed on the edge of the table: WKalf( formerly
with Kunsthandel P. de Boer, Amsterdam).
Grisebach 1974, no. A3, p. 97, fig. 171. For
discussion of Grisebach’s questions about the
attribution, see Giltaij and Meijer in Rotterdam-
Aachen 2006-7, P- 70.

4 Giltaij and Meijer in Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7,
p. 74. Significantly, De Heem, like Kalf, painted

a number of rustic still lifes while living in Leiden
before he moved to Antwerp.

5 Formerly Lazaro collection, Madrid, inv. no. 11297.

6 The comparison of the painting by De Heem to
Still Life with a Silver-gilt Jug is made in Rotterdam-
Aachen 2006-7, no-14, P- 74 , where it is illustrated
as fig. 2; on p. 80 Giltaij notes that the same glass
appears in the 1643 painting in Le Mans (see n. 7
below) as well as in the work in Cologne (see n. 8
below) and that at the J. Paul Getty Museum,

Los Angeles ( Still Life with Ewer, Vessels, and
Pomegranate, mid-i64os, oil on canvas, 41 Ysx 31% in.
(104.5 x 80.6 cm), inv. no. 54.PA.1.

7 Oil on canvas, 29 Vs x 22% in. (74 x 58 cm), signed
and dated on side of table: W.KALFf 1643.

8 See, for example. Still Life of Gilded Vessels and Plates
(Musee des Beaux-Arts, Rouen, inv. no. 1833.5), oil
on canvas, 52 ps x 28 in. (132.5 x 71 cm). A similar
composition inscribed 1643 in the Wallraf-
Richartz Museum, Cologne, to which the Carter
painting was compared in Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82, p. 126, is now considered a
copy of a work by Kalf.

9 Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no. 14, p. 74. The vase
is one of a series of antique vases (Bartsch nos.
161-70). Numerous engravings of “antique” ewers
were published by goldsmiths, especially from
Nuremberg, during the late sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries to advertise their craft.

10 Delft-Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, p. 185,
notes the resemblance of the ewer in the Carter
painting to a pewter model made after a design
by the French metalworker Frangois Briot in the
last quarter of the sixteenth century. For Briot,
see Demiani 1897. Regarding pewter models
made in Nuremberg after designs by Briot, see
Haedeke 1968, nos. 227-28, ill. Known as Edelzinn
(precious pewter), the vessels, which were
molded rather than chased, commanded high
prices. The ewers were usually paired with a
basin decorated with reliefs representing
allegories of the seasons and continents of the
world. The allegorical figure of Temperance or
Mars often appears in the center of the basins as
well as on the ewer. Although Segal (Delft-
Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, pp. 184-85)
identifies the figure in the oval on the ewer in
Kalf’s painting as Temperance, the male face on
the neck of the vessel may indicate that the
iconography refers to Mars. The decoration on a
Mars ewer by Jacob Koch II and Caspar Endelein,
Nuremberg, 1610, based on a design by Briot in
the Kunstgewerbemuseum, Cologne, represents
the allegorical figures of Peace, Abundance, and
War. Haedeke 1968, no. 228, p. 151.

11 Willem Kalf, Barn Interior, oil on wood, 12% x
10H in. (32.2 x 26.2 cm), signed and dated lower
right: WK1638. Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no. 1.

12 Documents were first published by Lammertse
and Szanto 2006-7, pp-10-11.

13 Willem Kalf, Peasants Outside at a Well, oil on wood,
12% x 9 Vx in. (32 x 24 cm), signed and dated on
the trough: KALF /1642, private collection.
Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no. 4.

14 Kalf may have traveled en route to Middelburg,
the second most important chapter of the Dutch
East India Company, to accompany his brother,
who died in 1640 on his way to the East Indies.

15 Delft-Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, p. 184,
noted that the Carter painting “was signed and
had indistinct vestiges of a date: w kalf 163(7).”

16 Grisebach 1974, who had not seen the original,
illustrated and mentioned it in his book without
reporting a signature or date. Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 124, noted,
“Remains of a signature at lower center: KALF,”
but on p. 126 stated that a recent examination
revealed no trace of a date. No evidence of a
signature or a date was found during a thorough
examination of the painting by the technical
staff at LACM A in April 2010.

17 Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7, no- H, p- 74 , where
Fred Meijer refers to the Carter painting as a
Paris still life.

18 De Lairesse 1712 (1738), p. 555, quoted in Delft-
Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89, pp. 183-84.

19 Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974, p. 55, refers to wooden
models sent from Europe. On p. 58, he notes,
“Porcelain made in Chinese style and exported to
Europe included simple or double-gourd flasks

... brush pots, and also globular bottles (plate 50)
with a long neck... on the body is a Chinese
landscape with figures and on the neck the

230

familiar tulip with leaves.” Pi. 50 is a blue-and-
white vase from the Keramiekmuseum
Princessehof, Leeuwarden. The author includes
an illustration of a detail of a still life attributed
to J. van Treek (1624-1684) showing a globular
vase with a long neck very similar to that in the
Carter painting. The painting has also been
associated with Kalf. Although Grisebach 1984,
no. C23, doubted the attribution to Kalf, the
painting shares the porcelain vase with the
Carter painting and the distinctive white linen
tablecloth decorated with a line of embroidery
with Still Life with a Silver-giltJug.

19 Koninck (back to entry)

1 Oil on canvas, 16 Va x 22% in. (41.3 x 58.1 cm).

2 Oil on canvas, 54 Vi x 65 14 in. (138.4 x 166.4 cm).

3 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 68.

4 Van Thiel 1968, n.p.

5 Gerson 1936 (1980), no. Z38, and Plomp 1997, no.
226, p. 213, pi. XI. See also Cornfield, pen, wash,
bister or ink, and gray wash, 5 Ya x 714 in. (134 x
190 mm). Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam, inv. no. R. 75, Gerson 1936 (1980), no.
Z42.

6 In 1708 the steward of the stadholder estates in
Breda employed the air barometer to record
changes in temperature on the outside wall of a
greenhouse and kept a diary of the daily weather
conditions. De Jong 2000, p. 31.

7 “Den 30 [June 1624]. Voormiddags graeu, duijster
ende regen-weder zonder zonneschijn, maer de
Naermiddag helder met sonneschyn, doch al den
dag door woeij ende stormed het zeer sterck uit
den Noortwesten.” D. Beck 1993, p. 124.

8 30 June 1624: “dede van daer commende een
groote wandel[ing] door ende door den Hage, als
oock een stuck weegs tot buijten het Noort-eynde
op den weg naar Schevelinge, vermoeyende myne
wandelaers daer te ontmoeten ofte te zien
aencomen van eenen hoogen droogen duijn, daer
ick wel Vi uijr lang stont ende speculeerde over
ende weder; ging ten 5 uijren near huijs.” D. Beck
1993 , p-124-

9 30 June 1624: “B. henrick, die ten 1 14 uijr met
Breckerfelt near Schevelingen ging om de storm
in de Zee te zien.” D. Beck 1993, p. 124.

10 In contrast to the bird’s-eye view of the “world”
painted by Pieter Bruegel and others during the
sixteenth century, the seventeenth-century
paintings depict the natural local landscape as a
continuation of the viewer’s space.

11 Van Strien 1993, p. 113.

12 8 August 1624: “ick met Breckerf[elt] ende zijn
vrouken (verzelt met anderen) ging op den
haegschen kerck Tooren, daer wy wel 1 uijr lang
onder de klocke lagen ende speculeerden van
boven neder met een verreziender.” D. Beck 1993,
p. 147. Churches often charged an admission fee
to go up the tower. In Amsterdam the fee was one
to two stuyvers (pennies). Van Strien 1993, p. 113.

13 P. 333, emblem XLVII.

14 For the artificial hill in the garden of the
Mauritshuis, see Diedenhofen 1990, pp. 51-52.
The rear part of the garden could not be seen
from the Mauritshuis, so Johan Maurits had an
octagonal grotto constructed, on top of which
was an elevated viewing platform. The “hill” was
covered with stones to simulate the appearance
of rocks. Diedenhofen notes that similar rock
mountains were constructed in England. For
Huygens’s garden platform, see Van Pelt 1981,

p. 158. Huygens originally built an obelisk on top
of the artificial hill as a monument to the happy
years he had spent with his wife, Susanna, who
had died in 1637. After the monument was
damaged by lightning, he replaced it with a
tower, which could be climbed and provided
magnificent views of the flat landscape of
Holland, with the silhouettes of Leiden, Delft,
and The Hague. Huygens included an illustra¬
tion of his garden and the hill with his poem
“Hofwyck,” in Huygens 1653. W. de Vries 1990, fig. 1.

15 Diedenhofen 1990.

20 Van der Neer (back to entry)

1 Schulz 2002, no. 14 as “probably late forties.” See
also Schulz 2002, nos. 16 and 22 as “beginning of
the fifties.” Regarding dating Van der Neer’s
winter scenes, see Schulz 2002, pp. 81-88. The
author notes that the lack of dates and apparent
inconsistency of stylistic progression make it
difficult to date the paintings. He does not suggest
a date for the Carter painting but implies a date in
the late forties or early fifties by his placement of
the illustration between those paintings he
assigns to that period. Los Angeles-Boston-New
York 1981-82, p. 7205, compares the Carter
painting to a group of small paintings dated
1650-60: Schulz 2002, nos. 21,40, and 50.

2 See, for example. Winter Scene with Bird Trap, signed
and dated PBRVEGH [1601], oil on wood, 15 1 2 3 /s x
22 3 * * /s in. (39 x 57 cm) (Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Vienna, inv. no. Gemaldegalerie 625).

21 Peeters (back to entry)

1 Osias Beert’s paintings show a similar apprecia¬
tion for the different textures, but not the colors,
of the sliced artichoke. See Osias Beert the Elder,
Still Life with Oysters, Artichokes, and Olives, 1620, oil
on wood, 2i 7 /s x 24 14 in. (55.5 x 61.5 cm), Muzeum
Narodowe we Wroclawiu, Wroclaw, Poland, inv.
no. VII-2282, illustrated in color in Vienna-Essen
2002, p. 235. In the entry for the painting formerly
attributed to Beert in Vienna-Essen 2002, no. 77,
p. 234, Stephan Brakensiek discusses the Bacchic
and sexual associations of the artichoke.

2 Formerly with Otto Naumann Gallery, New York.

3 Oil on panel, 17% x 13 % in. (45.5 x 33.5 cm),

formerly with Richard Green Gallery, London.

The same minimal representation of the edge of a

wood table or ledge also appears in the paintings
of Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (see cat. no. 4)
and his followers, including Balthasar van der Ast

(1593/94-165 7), who had close ties to Antwerp.

4 See, for example, Frans Snyders, Still Life with Fruit
and Vegetables, 68% x 101 in. (173.4 x 256.5 cm),
Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no.
F.1973.16.P.

5 Bruyn 1996, p. 208.

6 See E. de Jongh in Auckland-Wellington-Christ
Church 1982, pp. 65-69, who recounts, among
other examples, a legend that a skipper argued
with Prince Maurits when the prince added a slice
of cheese to a buttered piece of bread. Butter is
not regularly included in the Haarlem paintings.
Lammers 1979, pp. 404-8, attributes Eucharistic
meaning to the paintings.

7 John Ray, Observations Topographical, Moral, and
Physiological, Made in a Journey through Part of the
Low-Countries, Germany, Italy and France.... (London,
1673), p. 43, quoted in Van Strien 1998, p. 366.

8 Salt was also essential for the fishing industry as
well as for pickling meat and curing bacon for
consumption on long sea voyages. During the
fifteenth century Flanders was an important
center for salt refining, but with the sharp
increase in marine salt shipments by the Dutch
from France, Portugal, and Spain during the
sixteenth century, Zeeland took over as the
primary center for salt manufacturing.
Hochstrasser 2007, p. 164.

9 Hochstrasser 1999-2000, p. 75.

10 Hochstrasser 2007, p. 16306.

11 Contemporaries attributed the Dutch success in
farming to the cool climate and the succulent
meadows that had been enriched by improved
methods of crop rotation, drainage, and
fertilization. A mid-seventeenth-century author
observed, “Also there are here in every respect
very delightful pastures, which are rich and
fruitful for the ploughman to cultivate, and sow
what he wants. If on the green painted fields
many oxen, cattle, and sheep are placed, the
animals do wonderfully well. The cows give milk,
butter, and cheese, to the nourishment of our
lives....” (Oock zijn hier allesins seer lustige
Landouwen, / Die vet en vruchtbaer zijn voor

d’Ackerman te bouwen, / En zayen wat hij wil. Of
groen geschildert velt, / Daer menigh os en koe,
en schaep is op gestelt, / En tieren wonder wel.

De Koeyen suyvel geven, / De Boter en de kaes, tot
voedtsel van ons leven). Jacobus van Oudenhoven,
Out-Hollandt, nuZuyt-Hollandt(i6sA), p- 401,
quoted in Hengeveld 1865-70, vol. 1 (1865), p. 31,
translation in A. Walsh 1985, p. 353.

12 Quoted in Hengeveld 1865-70, vol. 1, p. 22,
without attribution as “niet anders als met Botter
en Kaes, en dat in zulken menighte, dat het voor
den vreemden man een wonder schijnt: die daar
niet minder als bij een heele Kaas of een vaatje
Botter mach verkoft warden.”

13 J. de Vries 1974, p. 160, table 4.12. On p. 144, he
cites the accounts from 1570 to 1573 of a Friesian
farmer, Rienck Hemmena, whose dairy cows each
yielded an average of at least 1,350 liters of milk a
year. Hengeveld 1865-70, vol. 1 (1865), p. 22,
estimated that during the early seventeenth
century, in the whole Noorderkwartier (northern
Holland), twenty million pounds of cheese were
made and sold a year in addition to what was
used in the home.

231

14 Jacob Cats, for example, wrote, “We sometimes
eat meat and then once again fish if that comes
from the sea or is in our pond. Our tables are
provided in all kinds of ways with voorkost, fruit,
roasted meat, all uncooked food.” (Wij eten
somtijds vlees en dan eens weder vis / Of die
komt uit de zee of in onz’ vij ver is / Onz’ tafels
zijn voorzien op velerhande wijze / Met voorkost,
fruit, gebraad, al ongekookte spijze). Quoted in
Ten Berge 1979, p. 166.

15 Johanna Suzanne de Jongh wrote her
dissertation, “Holland und die Landschaft,”
under Heinrich Wolfflin at the University of
Berlin in 1903. Two years later in The Hague she
married Adriaan Goekoop (1859-1914), a lawyer,
businessman, amateur archaeologist, and
collector. Goekoop-de Jongh shared her
husband’s interest but continued throughout her
life to write about Dutch paintings while living
in Jacob Cats’s former home, Sorgvliet.
“Hoofdstuk 11, Kunsthistorische en archeolo-
gische mecenas Dr. Johanna Goekoop-de Jongh
(1877-1946),” in Marcus-de Groot 2003, pp.

322-55.

22 Porcellis (back to entry)

1 Getty Provenance Index, Archival Inventories
Database, 10 Oct. 1668, inventory of Jan Miense
Molenaer, Haarlem, N-5314, no. 91, “een grauwtje
van Jan van Goyen.”

2 Both Royal Collection Trust, London, inv. nos.
RCIN 402744 and 402633. Gerlinde de Beer (De
Beer 2013) returns to Porcellis the earlier
attribution made by John Walsh in his
dissertation and monographic article on Porcellis
(J. Walsh 1974, p. 654), which had been rejected
by Margarita Russell (Russell 1983, pp. 163-64,
figs. 145,146), who reattributed the paintings to
Hendrick Vroom. De Beer (pp. i6ff.) notes that the
paintings, which were in the royal collection by
1610, were acquired by Henry, Prince of Wales

(d. 1612) and displayed in St. James’s Palace, where
they were seen in 1613 by Johann Ernst I, Duke of
Saxe-Weimar (Herzog von Sachsen Weimar).

3 Quoted in Sluijter 2013, pp. 344-45. Samuel van
Hoogstraten and Arnold Houbraken (1660-1719)
relate a story of a competition among Frangois
Knibbergen (1596-1674), Jan Porcellis, and Jan van
Goyen (1596-1656) to determine who could paint
the best picture in the course of a day. The story,
which was probably apocryphal, allowed Van
Hoogstraten to describe the characteristics of each
artist.

4 Fondation Custodia Collection Frits Lugt, Institut
Neerlandais, Paris, inv. no. J. 3441. Henkel 1931,

pi. XLVII, and J. Walsh 1974, p. 737, fig. 27.

5 The print is number 3 in the suite of twelve
engravings titled leones Variarum Navium
Hollandicarum (Hollstein Dutch 23).

6 J. Walsh 1971, no. F25, p. 393.

7 As if to emphasize that the sailors are in control,
Porcellis included two porpoises whose dorsal fins
are visible in the lower right next to a pole
bobbing in the waves. Traditionally considered to
be harbingers of good fortune for sailors, they
were commonly found off the coast of Zeeland.

23 Post ack to entry)

1 For Marcgraf, see North 1979 and Whitehead 1979;
for Marcgraf and Piso (Pies), see Guerra 1979.

2 Buvelot 2004, pp. 32-33, discusses without conclu¬
sion the argument that, contrary to traditional
thought, Eckhout actually may not have painted
the large paintings in Brazil but in the Netherlands
after his return.

3 Caspar Barlaeus, quoted in Sousa-Leao 1973, p. 49.

4 Sousa-Leao 1973, pp. 47-51, and The Hague 2004,
pp. 137 - 44 -

5 Sousa-Leao 1973, p. 49. Buvelot 2004, pp. 32-35,
argues against the placement of the large paint¬
ings by Eckhout in the palace, pointing out that
they would not have fit into the Mauritshuis.

A drawing for one of the rooms on the second floor
shows that Brazilian themes were planned for a
room there; see Buvelot 2004, p. 34, fig. 31: anony¬
mous (Jacob van Campen?), Design for the Decoration
of a Wall, after 1644, graphite, 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 /s x 13% in.

(22 x 34 cm), Dutch Royal Collection, The Hague.

6 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007,

p. 40. While still in Brazil, Johan Maurits wrote to
his cousin the stadholder Frederik Hendrik
requesting that he commission Post to execute a
now-lost painting. Johan Maurits hoped that the
unusually high payment would help the artist
reestablish himself in Haarlem after his return
from Brazil.

7 The paintings (twelve still lifes, eight portraits,
a large painting of native dancers, and a portrait
of Johan Maurits himself) were given by Johan
Maurits to his cousin Frederik III of Denmark in
1654 and are now in the Nationalmuseet,
Copenhagen. On Eckhout, see The Hague 2004
and Brienen 2002 and 2006, with additional
references. About Johan Maurits’s gift to Louis
XIV, see Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al.
2007, pp. 68-79.

8 While in Brazil, Post painted only on canvas. After
his return to the Netherlands, he switched to
wood panels.

9 Although still contained within the lower half
of the composition, the horizon lines of paintings
executed by Post after his return to the Nether¬
lands, when his interest was increasingly decora
tive, are higher than those painted in the colony.

10 According to Correa do Logo and Correa do Lago
et al. 2007, p. 158, “Leonardo Dantas recognized
the same house in one of the drawings serving as
a basis for a print in Barlaeus’s book (D38).”

11 See, for example. Homes of the Labradores Who Plant
Sugar, oil on canvas, 41 x 51 Vs in. (104 x 130 cm),
signed lower left, F Post, ca. 1650-55 (Musee du
Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 1725), Correa do Lago and
Correa do Lago et al. 2007, no. 110, ill.

12 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007,
no. 27.

13 Correia de Andrade 1979, p. 267, notes that Dutch
buildings were typically constructed of brick
with a two-sided roof; the bricks and tiles used
for the Dutch buildings came from Europe as
ballast on ships that would return laden with
sugar. Portuguese buildings were constructed of
stone or adobe, beams, and clay, with a four-sided
roof. Leon Krempel’s suggestion, reported by
Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007,

p. 158, that the second story rests on an unfinished
stone foundation is improbable because of the
pile of rubble in the foreground and the broken
appearance of the foundation, which does not
correspond to the upper structure.

14 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007,
p. 38. The Dutch typically acted primarily as
merchants and were involved in trade and
administration of the colony. Agricultural affairs
remained in the hands of the Portuguese
landowners. See Israel and Schwartz 2007
regarding tolerance in Dutch Brazil.

15 Correia de Andrade 1979, p. 266.

16 Only European men were brought to the colony;
thus, the mothers of children born in Brazil were
indigenous people or slaves.

17 Brienen 2002, p. 115. Correa do Lago and Correa
do Lago et al. 2007, p. 38, notes that at a time
when Olinda had only 3,000 free inhabitants, the
governor imported 20,000 slaves from Africa.

18 The Hague 1979-80, no. 107.

19 See Correia de Andrade 1979, p. 266, and Brienen
2006.

20 Papavero and Teixeira 2000, p. 21. The comments
were made by Cuthbert Pudsey in hi s Journal of

a Residence in Brazil, 1629-1640. Pudsey notes that
the Brazilians were paid for their labor in linen
for their clothes.

21 Seen. 7 above.

22 The physical conditions under which slaves
worked on sugar plantations were extremely
poor. They lacked adequate clothing and
housing, and suffered from poor nutrition,
harsh discipline, and cruel punishments.
Schwartz 1992, p. 41.

23 Ramakers 2002. Post’s conception contrasts,
again, with that of Eckhout, who represented
naked Tapuya dancers with spears preparing for
war ( Dance of the Tapuya Indians, ca. 1640,
Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, inv. no. N.38B).
Numerous contemporary commentators remark
about Brazilians dancing.

24 Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007,
no. 52, p. 200.

24 Pynacker (back to entry)

1 In a letter to Frederick Mont dated 11 January 1973
(Pynacker object file. Department of European
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), J. Nieuwstraten,
director of the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, stated that he had
discovered a very small monogram, AP, written in
cursive on the log near the anchor points. In 1980,
however, he noted that the painting was unsigned.
Following Nieustraten’s original observations, Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 80, notes
the painting is signed on the bridge abutment, left
center: AP. Laurie Harwood in Williamstown-
Sarasota 1994-95, p* 44n3, questioned the
signature and states, “The letters do not...
conform with those conventionally used by the
artist.” The recent examination of the painting,
including infrared reflectography, at LACMA also
did not detect any signature. See Technical Report.

232

2 The tentative identification of the location as
Schiedam was originally proposed by J.
Nieuwstraten in his letter to Frederick Mont of
n January 1973 and first published in Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 80 and
83n2. It was subsequently confirmed by Laurie
Harwood in Harwood 1988, no. 30, pp. 59-60, on
p. 6on4, based on information from J. M. M.
Jansen, archivist of Schiedam. Although now
replaced by an iron bridge, a curved wooden
bridge, like that portrayed in the painting,
originally spanned the Koorte Haven. The
foundations of the original bridge still remain.

3 A lock located just to the left of the bridge as
viewed in Pynacker’s painting then as now
prevented passage farther down the wide canal.

4 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 80.

5 New York-London 2001, p. 340, notes, “Pynacker
brings the light of a late afternoon on the
Mediterranean to the north.” Although it is
difficult to determine exact times of day, the
Koorte Haven runs east-west, meeting the Lange
Haven, which runs north-south, at its eastern
end. Thus Pynacker’s view is toward the east. In
depicting a local scene, presumably for a local
client, Pynacker would probably have sought to
describe the time of day accurately.

6 In Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, pp. 80
and 83m, Walsh and Schneider argue that the
painting should be dated about 1650-53.
Harwood, who originally accepted the broader
date in Harwood 1988, pp. 59,6on3, in
Williamstown-Sarasota 1994, p. 44, revised her
opinion, stating, “A date of 1650 is now... more
accurate because of the many features the picture
shares with An Italian Seaport with Shipping and
Figures, dated 1650 ([Harwood 1988] no. 3; private
collection).”

7 See cat. no. 2n3. The painting is in the Gallerie
degli Uffizi, Florence.

8 According to Harwood 1988, p. 60, Pynacker’s
father, Christiaen Pijnacker, who appears in
Schiedam archives as Christiaan Adamsz.
Kerckhoven (b. ca. 1580 in Pynacker), owned the
property between 1612 and 1660.

9 The portrait was painted to hang with that
of Pynacker’s wife, Eva Maria de Geest (panel,

28 x 22 7 /s in. [71.5 x 57 cm]). Fries Museum.
Leeuwarden, inv. no. 1957-666, which was painted
by her father in 1652, Wybrand de Geest. The
couple was wed in 1658.

10 New York-London 2001, p. 11. Although Pynacker
was probably living in Schiedam in 1650, he did
not register in the painters’ guild there, suggest¬
ing that before he moved to Amsterdam in 1661,
he was occupied primarily as a wine merchant
and shipowner. He probably inherited the
business from his father. In addition to being

a wine merchant, Christiaen traded in herring
and wheat and owned at least three ships: the
Guide Staare, the Vlack, and the Sint Pieter. It is
likely that the business was involved with
trade with Livorno during the second half of the
1640s, when the artist is believed to have traveled
to Italy.

11 E-mail from J. M. M. Jansen to the author, 1 June
2010 (Pynacker object file. Department of
European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA). De
Wijs was a member of the city council ( vroedschap )
from 1640 on; sheriff (schepen), 1638-59; and
burgomaster (burgemeester), 1662-71.

12 I am grateful to Dr. Jansen for his research in the
municipal archives of Schiedam.

13 The connection to Jonassen was originally made
by J. M. M. Jansen, who has, however, subse¬
quently not found any support for the
suggestion.

25 Van Ruisdael and Berchem

(back to entry)

1 Regarding the collection of Dutch paintings,
including The Great Oak, in the collection of
Cardinal Gonzaga, see Slive 1987.

2 For a discussion of Berchem’s reputation, see
Slive 1987, pp. 176-80, and Seelig 2006.

3 In addition to the Carter and Pasadena (see n. 4
below) paintings, Berchem painted the staffage in
a number of other landscapes by Van Ruisdael as
late as 1665 to 1668, when the latter painted
WoodedLandscapewithaFloodedRoad, oil on canvas,
67% x 76% in. (171 x 194 cm), Musee du Louvre,
Paris, inv. no. 1817 (Slive 2001a, no. 397). For Van
Ruisdael and Berchem, see Slive 2001a, pp. 23-25,
and Pijl 2006, pp. 87-89. Other artists who
occasionally painted staffage in Ruisdael’s
paintings included Adriaen van de Velde (see cat.
no. 30), Thomas de Keyser (1596/97-1667), Dirk
Wijntrack (before 1625-1678), and possibly Gerrit
Battem (1636-1684).

4 Three Great Trees in a Mountainous Landscape with a
River, oil on canvas, 54 1 2 3 4 /s x 6 814 in. (138.1 x 173.1
cm), from the late 1660s (Norton Simon Museum,
Pasadena, inv. no. M.1969.33.P), is another of Van
Ruisdael’s grand expressions of the heroic tree.
Three monumental trees tenaciously clinging to
the earth stand on the precipice of a hill
overlooking a distant river valley. Light breaks
through clouds that shroud the landscape and
dramatically illuminates the trees, seemingly
celebrating their heroic survival. Two entwined
oaks, their leaves just beginning to take on
autumnal coloring, serve as foils for a giant
battered birch, its white bark glimmering in the
sunlight. The birch’s violent history is empha¬
sized by the exposed red wood of the broken
trunk and branches. Red also appears mixed amid
the leaves of the oak trees and in patches on the
ground, where broken branches and roots testify
to the ravages of wind, water, and erosion.

5 Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 135, with additional
references, especially Walford 1991, p. 82.

6 Los Angeles 1992-93. pp- 134 - 35 - On p. 135, the
authors note, “The Carter painting may well be
the exception to the rule in this regard, for the
majority of landscapes in which Ruisdael had

a collaborator... the staffage animates the scene
but does not seem to communicate any particular
message.” Slive 2001a, p. 250, rejects any
attribution of meaning to the bones.

7 Los Angeles 1992-93. p-135-

8 De Bievre 1988. Following the withdrawal of the
Spanish, Haarlem sought to rebuild the economy
and the confidence and pride in the city. In 1584
the city council brought ten thousand oak trees
from the region of Amersfoort to restore the
Haarlem Woods, an important symbol of the
city’s glorious past.

26 Van Ruisdael (back to entry)

1 A print of the composition in reverse made by J. T.
Prestel (1739-1808) identifies the painting as
“peint par J. Ruisdael... / Le Coup de Soleil /
D’apres le Tableau original de la Galerie de Soder
appartenant a Mr. le Pr. de Brabeck” (Slive 2001a,
fig. 97a). Since 1804, Ruisdael’s mountainscape at
the Musee du Louvre, Paris, has been known as the
Coup de soleil.

2 Slive 2001a, nos. 82-108, pp. 111-29.

3 Slive 2001a, no. 105, Wooded Landscape with a
Grainfield and Cottages, oil on wood, 23% x 31% in.
(60.5 x 85.5 cm), monogrammed and dated 1647,
formerly Marquess of Zetland, Richmond; no. 78,
ViewofNaarden, oil on wood, 13% x 26% in. (34.8 x
67 cm), signed and dated 1647, Thyssen-
Bornemisza Museum, Madrid, inv. no. 354
(1930.99); and the etching no. E8, Grainfield at the
Edge of a Wood, 1648.

4 Ripe grainfields were traditionally used to
represent the summer months of July and August
in Netherlandish seasonal series (for example,
Pieter Bruegel the Elder [ca. 1525-1569], The
Harvesters, 1665, The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, inv. no. 19.164). The growing of grain
was more common in the Southern Netherlands
than in the north, where the land was famously
ideal for grazing cattle. Before the middle of the
seventeenth century, the Dutch imported the
majority of their grain from the Baltic, having
realized that more profit could be gained by
grazing cattle on their rich meadows than from
the labor-intensive growing of grain. J. de Vries
1974 . PP- 137 - 53 .169-73- By midcentury, however,
the importation of grain was replaced by that
grown on farms south and east of the Zuyder Zee
and western Friesland.

5 See, for example, Slive 2001a, no. 94, Grainfield in a
Hilly Landscape, oil on canvas, 18 14 x 18 Vs in. (46 x
46 cm). Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille, inv. no. 224; no.
96, Grainfield on a RollingPlain, oil on canvas, 17% x
2i 5 6 /8 in. (45 x 55 cm), Earl of Northbrook, London;
and no. 98, Landscape with a Wheatfield, oil on
canvas, 15% x 18 in. (40 x 45.7 cm). The J. Paul
Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 83.PA.278.

6 Liedtke 2007, vol. 2, no. 182, pp. 795-98, and Slive
2001a, no. 101.

7 Slive 2001a, p. 122, notes that Ruisdael introduced
this contrast as early as 1647 in his View ofNaarden,
no. 78. See n. 3 above.

233

8 In 1650, based on Weston’s manuscript, although
the author’s name was unknown at the time,
Samuel Hartlib (ca. 1600-1662) published Samuel
Hartlib: His Legacy, or an Enlargement of the Discourse
of Husbandry Used in Brabant and Flanders; Wherin
Are Bequeathed to the Common Wealth of England, More
Outlandish and Domestic Experiments and Secrets, in
Reference to Universall Husbandry. A second,
corrected and enlarged, edition (London, 1652)
recognized Weston as the author of the
introduction, with Hartlib as the editor and the
author of the rest of the book. The book was
enormously popular and went through
numerous editions.

9 “Men kan aen de Natuer een ander wesen geven. /
Als men in d’oeffening van Landbouw is
bedreven: / En maecken Wildernis tot nut en
vrugtbaer Landt.” Quoted in De Jong, Ramakers,
Roodenburg, et al. 2002, p. 18.

10 In his poem “Sorgvliet,” Cats takes particular
pride in his ability to create a fruitful garden
from barren land.

11 Bezemer-Sellers 1990, p. 107.

12 A. Walsh 1985.

27 VanRuysdael (back to entry)

1 Stechow 1938, pp. i9ff.; Stechow 1968, pp. 55-57.

2 At the core of this efficient system were the
trekschuiten, regularly scheduled passenger boats
drawn by horses along canals built with capital
investment between 1632 and 1665 to facilitate
travel and communication.}, de Vries 1981; an
etching, Ver (Spring), 1617, by Jan van de Velde II
(1593-1641), illustrates a trekschuit.

28 VanRuysdael (back to entry)

1 Hendrik van Brederode (1531-1568) owned almost
one-twelfth of Holland. As sovereign lord of
Vianen and Ameide, he had his own mint and high
court of justice. An anti-Catholic, he was the
spokesman for the so-called Beggars, the
noblemen who presented Margaret of Parma,
governor of the Netherlands, with a petition
drawn up at the castle in 1566. Taken over by the
Spanish the following year, Batestein Castle was
returned to the Brederode family in the
seventeenth century and rebuilt in 1650 under
Johan Wolfert van Brederode (1599-1655). The
Brederode family became extinct in 1679, and,
according to custom, the coat of arms was buried
in a grave. Batestein was destroyed by fire started
by bonfires built in celebration of the Peace of
Rijswijk in 1697. Pot Brederode, see Koenhein 1999.

2 Anonymous Utrecht student, “Notes of several
passages and observations in Holland, etc., part of
France, Savoy, Piemont [sic], Italy and Part of
Germany from June 1699 to July 1702,”
Huntington County Record Office, M 36/19.
Quoted in Van Strien 1998, pp. 338-39; p. 395
summarizes his itinerary.

3 Niemeyer 1959.

4 Rademaker 1725, no. 253: “View in the year 1630,
of Vianen, of its Castel and of St Paul’s Tower, t’is
here represented as facing the Lek’s River; the
Gentlemen de Brederode were formerly the Lords of
that Town. But that family being extincte, they in
the year 1679 buried their Coat of arms in their
grave.” Number 254, another image of Vianen,
expands on the town’s history, explaining that
the foundations of the castle were built in 1290
and were entirely completed by or about 1372.

5 J. de Vries 1981, especially pp. 5iff.

6 J. de Vries 1981, pp. 48-49.

29 Saenredam (back to entry)

1 Madrid 2008-9, p- 88, places the date of departure
between 29 May and 28 June 1636.

2 Schwartz and Bok 1989, pp. i49ff. The authors
note that the auction of the property of Huygens’s
daughter on 6 November 1725 included three
works by Saenredam. Since neither she nor her
husband was a collector, the paintings are
assumed to have come from her father, who knew
the artist. Schwartz and Bok also discuss other
evidence indicating connections between
Huygens and Saenredam.

3 Utrecht 2000-2001, p. 21. See pp. 21-23 for an
extended description and history of the church,
including a floor plan. Originally based on
German models, the fagade and other elements,
including the elegant nave, reflected Italian
influence.

4 Although Reformed authorities forbade them to
worship in the church since July 1585, the large
Catholic community living in the area around the
Mariakerk continued to meet secretly at the
Gertrudiskapel, a clandestine church adjacent to
their former church, starting about 1640.

5 Saenredam drew the view across the nave from
south to north (dated 30 June 1636; Het Utrechts
Archief, inv. no. 28607) as well as from north to
south (dated July 1636; Het Utrechts Archief, inv.
no. 28610). He also recorded the view of the nave
and choir from the southwest corner of the nave
(dated 9 July 1636; National Gallery of Scotland,
Edinburgh, inv. no. RSA525), the south aisle from
west to east (dated 16 July 1636; Het Utrechts
Archief, inv. no. 28609), and the transept to the
southwest (dated 22 July 1636; Kupferstichkabinett,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 13863).

6 For a detailed discussion of Saenredam’s
technique, see Van Heemstra 2002.

7 For example, in the painting The West Facade of the
Church of Saint Mary in Utrecht in the Thyssen-
Bornemisza Collection, Madrid, inv. no. 362
(1979.27). Gaskell 1990, pp. 270-74, especially

p. 274 and fig. 3, p. 275, and Madrid 2008-9,
especially pp. 53-61 (English ed., pp. 94-97).

8 Los Angeles 2002, nos. 25,26, and n. 9.

9 In Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 96,
this is incorrectly referred to as “the decorated
blind window.”

10 It is also possible that Saenredam worked out the
lighting in a now-lost drawing.

11 The illustration of the painting in the 1976 sale
catalogue includes the figures of two men and a
dog in the center and a third man behind a
column on the far right. After purchasing the
painting, Brod Gallery removed the central
group but retained the man on the right, who
was later removed when the painting was
restored after the Carters acquired it.

30 Adriaen van de Velde (back to e

1 On 8 August 1624, a day that was “schoon ende
helder weder met heeten sonneschijn,” David Beck
notes that in the morning B. Steven had asked
him if he wanted to go swimming with him at
Scheveningen in the afternoon: “wert voormiddags
onder de school aengesproken van B. Steven,

mij vragende of ick des naermiddags met hem
near Schevelingen wilde om ons te Baden.”

D. Beck 1993, p. 147.

2 D. Beck 1993, p. 109,5 June [1624]: “gingen wy 2...
naer Schevelinge om een zeeluchtien, wiesschen
de voeten in de Zee, wandelden Vz uyrken langs
het strant, droncken een kanneken tot de schout,
ende quamen ten 8 uijren thuijs.”

3 Quoted in translation in Gibson 2000, p. 104.

4 Cats 1880, vol. 2, p. 445.

5 Van Strien 1993, pp. 191-92, notes that travelers
were impressed that the road to Scheveningen,
like other great public works, paid back the
original investment within a matter of years.

6 Sir Francis Child, June 1697, quoted in Van Strien
1998, p. 196.

7 Beach scenes that M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2,
considers to be joint works by Willem van de
Velde the Younger and Adriaen van de Velde are
nos. 195 (pp. 858-61), 206 (pp. 856-58), 265 (pp.
864-65), and 266 (pp. 865-67). Robinson
attributes to Adriaen alone other paintings
produced for the Van de Velde studio and signed
W.V.V. or W.V.Velde with angular letters: nos. 21 (pp.
863-64), 270 (pp. 854-55), 352 (pp. 846-47), 353
(pp. 847-48), and 354 (pp- 848-49).

8 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, nos. 352-54, which he
dates about 1652.

31 Esaias van de Velde ?ack to entry)

1 Keyes 1984, no. 92, pi. 205, oil on wood, 7% x 13 in.
(19.6 x 33 cm), signed and dated 1628. Formerly
with Salomon Lilian.

2 1988 Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 32 (1988), 2 1 2 3 4 H6 x
3 5 6 7 8 9 /s in. (68 x 92 mm), no. 30, pp. 268-69.

3 The game of coif, which could be played on the
ground or on ice, was a popular sport in the
seventeenth century and is a standard detail in
most winter scenes. Players used a curved stick or
iron club attached to a stick to hit a wooden ball or
one made of sheepskin stuffed with cow or calf
hair. The goal was to hit the target (a post, a tree, a
hole in the ground, etc.) with the fewest strokes.

234

Players kept score on a tally stick. Bergen op Zoom
etc. 1982, and Pieter Roelofs in Amsterdam-
Washington 2009-10, p. 60.

4 Only one of his winter scenes, a tondo painted
about 1616 (Keyes 1984, no. 90) is related to

a corresponding scene of summer (Keyes 1984,
no. 130).

5 Keyes 1984, pp. 231-32, nos. D 61, and D110, D132,
D139, D152, D167.

6 For a discussion of the weather conditions during
the seventeenth century, see Van Suchtelen with
van der Ploeg 2001-2.

32 Willem van de Velde the Younger

(back to entry)

1 Weyschuiten are small Dutch boats used for fishing
close to shore.

2 M. Robinson 1973-74, vol. 2 (1974), no. 971, p. 23.

3 The Hague 2002, no. 34, pp. 178-81.

4 For the second Anglo-Dutch War (4 Mar. 1665-31
July 1667), see Boxer 1974, pp. 25-40.

5 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, p. 877.

6 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 2, no. 60, p. 878.

33 Willem van de Velde the Younger

and workshop >ack to entry)

1 The recent examination of the painting by Joseph
Fronek, Hannah and Edward Carter Senior
Conservator, Paintings, and Head of the
Department of Paintings Conservation, LACMA,
indicated that the signature and date were painted
“wet into soft brown,” thus dispelling the question
presented by M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 363, who
noted, “The signature is not visible on the
photograph taken by Cooper’s for Speelman in
1958 (neg. 238302), but a faint signature may since
have been strengthened.” The last digit of the date,
which Robinson had said “appeared as though it
might be a 7,” is correctly read as a 1. The signature
is angular, which according to Robinson is typical
of paintings produced in the studio of Willem van
de Velde the Elder.

2 A kaag is a type of cargo vessel designed for inland
waterways.

3 A similar yacht appears in a painting in the Liech¬
tenstein collection (M. Robinson 1990, no. 177),

in which a barge carrying well-dressed passengers
leaves the ship. There, however, the sun shines
from the opposite direction, illuminating the port
side of the yacht and the furled sails.

4 The identification of the yacht as belonging to the
Middelburg chamber was first reported to the
Carters by Evert Douwes in 1973 and was
supported by M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 363.

5 By establishing the Dutch East India Company,
the government sought to coordinate the
lucrative trade with the East Indies and limit
costly rivalries among the different independent
companies.

6 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 363.

7 M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, no. 415, p. 360.

8 Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97, pp. 418-20.

34 De Vlieger (back to entry)

1 See, for example, Adam Willaerts, The Embarkation
of the Elector Palatine in the “Prince Royal”: at Margate,
25April 1613, 1622 (Royal Museums Greenwich, inv.
no. BHC0266). The beaching of a sperm whale on
the sand between Scheveningen and Katwijk in
1598 was recorded in a drawing by Hendrick
Goltzius (1558-1617) engraved by Jacob Matham

(1571-1631)-

2 Already in 1604 Karel van Mander noted that the
Haarlem painter Hendrick Cornelisz. Vroom
(1566-1640) painted scenes of the coast.

3 When sold at auction in 1946, the painting was
identified as The Arrival of the Prince of Orange at
Flushing, presumed to commemorate the assault
on Antwerp in 1646 by the Dutch fleet under
Admiral Maerten Halpertsz. Tromp. In support of
this, Jan Kelch identified the ship on the left as
Tromp’s flagship Aemilia (Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82, addendum). The escutcheon
on the stern of the ship is not, however, that of the
Aemilia. Rather, it shows the triple X seal of
Amsterdam flanked by a man on either side.

4 I am grateful to Elisabeth Spits, Curator of Ship
Models, Technical Drawings, and Vessels,
Nationaal Scheepvaart Museum, Amsterdam, for
her help in identifying the class of ship and flags
(e-mail to the author, 19 Apr. 2010).

5 I am very grateful to Tom van der Molen, Curator,
Amsterdam Museum, Amsterdam, for identifying
the location of the scene.

6 See cat. no. 32.

7 In addition to the crew, who can be seen scurrying
about deck, the large ship in the foreground
includes men attired in black clothes and hats
who are undoubtedly passengers.

8 For De Vlieger as a draftsman, see C. P. van Eeghen
2006 and 2011. The inventory of the estate of the
artist Jan van de Cappelle (1626-1679), who
probably acquired the remainder of De Vlieger’s
studio, included approximately thirteen hundred
drawings and sketches as well as nine paintings
by the painter. Russell 1975, pp. 48-57. C. P. van
Eeghen 2006, p. 3, credits Van de Cappelle’s
acquisition of De Vlieger’s drawings as the reason
so many of his drawings are extant.

9 Hollstein 1949-2010, vol. 41 (De Vlieger),
greyhounds: nos. 11,12; and drafthorse in nos. 13,14.

10 Cited in Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
addendum.

11 Ruursi983.

12 Ruurs 1983, pp. 189,191.

13 Van Mander 1604, fols. 34v-35r, quoted in Ruurs
1983, p. 189. Ruurs notes that Van Mander
commented that his limited discussion of
perspective, especially of architecture, was due to
the publication of various books on perspective
in Dutch, “namely, the books by Pieter van Aelst
on geometry, perspective and architecture, Hans
Bloem and others” (Van Mander 1604, fol. 55V).

14 See Appendix, De Vlieger, n. 2.

15 Very similar in outward appearance and
construction to the Dutch man-of-war, the
spiegelretourschip could be conscripted by the
admiralty in times of war (www.vocsite.nl,
accessed 7 Oct. 2010).

35 De Witte (back to entry)

1 To prevent the monument from recalling the
previous Catholic altar, the floor of the ambula¬
tory was raised to the level of the nave and tomb.
Gout and Verschuyl 1989, pp. 52-53. In the
twentieth century the ambulatory was raised above
the level of the nave to accommodate the expanded
royal crypt beneath the tomb of William I.

2 Gout and Verschuyl 1989, p. 51.

3 On the introduction of curtains within church
views, see Heuer 1997.

4 Michalski 2002 suggests the importance of
Rembrandt’s 1648 etching for the development of
the characteristic soaring Delft church interiors
and the introduction of illusionistic curtains
during the early 1650s.

5 The jagged paint along the top edge of the
painting may indicate that the panel was cut (see
Technical Report). The vertical dimensions of the
proposed original format would, however, have
been abnormally disproportionate. In conversa¬
tion with the author at LACMA, 4 December 2009,
Arthur Wheelock suggested that the illusion of
the curtain might have originally extended onto
the actual frame of the painting, on which the
upper part of the curtain and railing would have
been painted.

6 On picture curtains and the Dutch church interior,
see Heuer 1997.

7 Pliny, 35-36,64-66. Pliny 1967-80, books 33-35,
pp. 309-10.

8 I am grateful here as elsewhere to Elma
O’Donoghue, Conservator, Paintings; Silviu
Boariu, Associate Conservator, Objects; and Yosi
Pozeilov, Senior Photographer, Conservation, at
LACMA, for their excellent analysis and imaging
of the underdrawing of the painting.

9 See, for example, Isaac Junius, Monument of
William of Orange, 16 June 1657, blue-painted
Dutch Delftware (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv.
no. BK-NM-12400-2).

10 Regarding the rise in Orangist sentiments,
especially in Delft in 1652, see Israel 1995, pp.

7 i 7 ff.

11 Joseph Taylor, 24 September 1707, quoted in Van
Strien 1998, p. 126.

12 Liedtke 2000, p. 83.

13 Scholten 2003, pp. 82-83. The author notes that
the significance of the virtues for the Dutch
Republic was not recognized by foreign visitors,
who associated them only with the prince.

235

14 Wheelock 1977, pp. 181-82.

15 Scholten 2003, pp. 211-31, especially pp. 211-23.

16 For this interesting shift, see Vanhaelen 2005.
Parival’s popular text was republished with
revisions in numerous editions into the
eighteenth century; Parival 1728 (1651).

17 Scholten 2003, p. 213.

18 Scholten 2003, p. 213, translation of Van
Bleyswijck, Beschryvinge derStadt Delft 1667-81,
vol. 1 (1667), p. 264.

19 Montias 1987, p. 73, notes that the catalogue of
the sale of Jacob Dissius in Delft, 16 May 1696,
included three paintings by Emanuel de Witte:
The Old Church in Amsterdam; The Tomb of the Old
Prince; and “another church,” which, he believes
were among those inherited from Johannes
Vermeer’s patron Pieter van Ruyven (1624-1674).
In a letter to Edward Carter, Montias speculates
that the Carter paintings were those sold in 1696
(De Witte object file. Department of European
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), but in Montias
1989, p. 256, he refers to the paintings as only
“fine examples of de Witte’s handling of these
two subjects.”

20 Getty Provenance Index, Archival Inventories
Database, Gemeentearchief, Amsterdam (NAA
1997, film no. 2163, fols. 264-20), inventory of the
estate of Isaac Swartepaert, made by Harmen van
Swoll and Gerrit van Uylenburgh, 17 Jan. 1671,

“2’t Graff [N.B. doorgehaald (crossed out): 1 kerk
van] van de Prins, door Emanuel de Wit f. 80.”
Unfortunately, nothing is known about
Swartepaert, who had a collection of forty-one
paintings by major contemporary Dutch artists,
including two by De Witte and a number by
Jacob van Ruisdael and Allaert van Everdingen.

21 Liedtke 2000, p. 83.

36 De Witte (back to entry)

1 Manke 1963, nos. 44ft For the history of the Oude
Kerk, see Noach 1939.

2 Houbraken 1718-21 (1976), vol. 1 (1718), p. 283.

3 I am grateful to Elma O’Donoghue, Conservator,
Paintings; Silviu Boariu, Associate Conservator,
Objects; Yosi Pozeilov, Senior Photographer,
Conservation; and Charlotte Eng, former
Associate Scientist, Conservation, LACMA, for
their excellent analysis and for capturing the
underdrawing of this painting.

4 Ivan Gaskell (Gaskell 1990, p. 478) noted De Witte
made similar adjustments in Interior of a Gothic
Church (Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid,
inv. no. 439 [1972.10]): “Infra-red photography and
reflectography reveal that De Witte altered his
composition extensively in the course of painting.
... Not only is the armature of basic horizontals,
verticals and diagonals within which the
architectural elements are drawn revealed, but
considerable changes to the form of the aisle
arches and vaulting and to the chapel chevet can
be discerned.”

5 The screen is included in contemporary and later
descriptions of Amsterdam, including Dapper
1663 (1975), p. 379, and J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2
(1765), p. 103, ill. opp. p. 101.

6 De Witte’s manipulation of space to focus
attention or reveal details of architecture is also
evident in other paintings. In The Interior of the
Oude Kerk, 1661 (Amsterdam Museum, on loan
from the National Office of Cultural Heritage, inv.
no. SB 4929), for example, De Witte eliminated
the large chandelier in the crossing of the
transept and north aisle to provide a view of the
recently restored small organ. Middelkoop with
Reichwein and Van Gent 2008, p. 126.

7 Both the great organ and the smaller organ on the
north aisle are described in Dapper 1663 (1975),

p. 379 , and in J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765),
p. 100. According to Wagenaar, the great organ
cost 1,320 guilders, 2 stuivers, and 8 pennies.
Repaired from time to time, it was replaced in
1724. The smaller organ, which was placed against
the pillar on the corner of the Sint-Jeroen Choir
on the north side of the church, was restored in
the middle of the seventeenth century.

8 Regarding the organ controversy, see Bruinsma
1954 .

9 Bruinsma 1954, pp. 210-12.

10 Van Strien 1993, p. 204.

11 Bruinsma 1954, pp. 209-10.

12 J. Wagenaar 1760-67 (1971-72), vol. 2 (1765),
p. 100, “Ook plagt men, nog in de voorgaande
eeuwe, alle avonden, tot vermaak der
wandelaaren in de Oude Kerke, op het kleine
Orgel te speelen.”

13 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. 118.

The authors note that by 1659 the renovations of
the small organ located at the corner of the
crossing near the pulpit were completed.

14 The sermon for the morning service was drawn
from a passage in the Bible. Utrecht 1986, p. 15.

15 J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), p. 100.

16 Quoted in Van Strien 1993, p. 205.

17 Scholten 2003, p. 13. Lawrence 1992, p. 292,
discusses the cult of Dutch naval heroes. The
often elaborate monuments to Dutch sea
captains served as patriotic shrines, “public
memorials where Virtue’ was "eternalized
through art.’” Placed within the context of the
church, often in locations formerly occupied by
Catholic altars, these patriotic heroes assumed
increased status by association with religious
martyrs.

18 William, Lord Fitzwilliam (1643-1719), “The
Voyage of the Low Countrys and of Some Part of
France, anno 1663,” Northampton, North¬
amptonshire Record Office, Fitzwilliam (Milton)
Misc. volumes, vol. 234, May-June 1663, quoted
in Van Strien 1998, pp. 29-30. The windows of
the life of Mary are still extant in the Mary Chapel
on the north side of the choir. The window
commemorating the Peace of Munster is on the
southern side of the ambulatory. Fitzwilliam’s
identification of the scene as representing the
coronation of the Spanish king was incorrect.

19 Liedtke 2007, vol. 2, p. 963.

20 The inventory dated 9 March 1709 is in the
Gemeentearchief, Amsterdam, NAA 5001, fols.
425-549. See the Getty Provenance Index,
Archival Inventories Database. The painting was
left to Pieter de Graeff’s son Cornelis de Graeff.
Possibly the same painting appears as “a small
church” (een kerkje) in the estate inventory of
Gerrit de Graeff, 12 Feb.-io Apr. 1753, which
notes that he was living at the same address as
Pieter, on the Herengracht, between the
Utrechtsestraat and the Reguliersgracht. This
association seems more credible than that first
suggested by J. Michael Montias in a letter to
Edward Carter (De Witte object file. Department
of European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA)
that the Carter paintings were those sold in 1696
by Jacob Dissius in Delft. Montias 1987, p. 73,
notes that the catalogue of the sale of Jacob
Dissius in Delft, 16 May 1696, included three
paintings by Emanuel de Witte: The Old Church in
Amsterdam; The Tomb of the Old Prince; and another
church, which, he believes were among those
inherited from Johannes Vermeer’s patron Pieter
van Ruijven (1624-1674). In Montias 1989, p. 256,
however, he refers to the paintings as only “fine
examples of de Witte’s handling of the two
subjects.”

21 Pronk began his career in Alkmaar and later
worked in Amsterdam, initially as a copyist of
Dutch masters of the seventeenth century and as
a portrait painter. He is best known as a
topographical artist. Knolle Online.

22 J. Wagenaar 1760-67, vol. 2 (1765), p. 103
describes the screen and the glass in the chapel
with the coats of arms of De Graeff and Hooft,
the latter in recognition of his wife, Catharina
Hooft.

236

NOTE TO THE READER:

HOW TO READ PROVENANCE

Provenance is the history of ownership, in this case, of paintings. There are various ways to
record provenance. In the Carter catalogue, provenance is written in the active tense, begin¬
ning with the earliest documented owner and progressing chronologically to Mr. and Mrs.
Carter and LACMA.

Sources

Records of ownership are found in inventories (personal and dealer archives), sales catalogues,
exhibitions, museum loan documents, and in contemporary newspaper notices or articles
about a collection. Catalogues raisonnes and general articles are less secure because authors
sometimes rely on outdated information about private collections that is not publicly
available.

Format

The names of owners are followed, when known, by life dates placed in parentheses. Any titles,
such as due de Berry, follow the dates, followed by the owner's residence, which may be an
estate or city or both. If the previous owner and/or the date of acquisition of the painting is
not known, the first reference to that person's ownership (typically an exhibition or article) is
noted, for example, "in 1904." Dealers' names are included when they held or handled a
painting, with their names enclosed in brackets. The dealer's name is followed by his place of
business. For example:

J. M. Redele, Dordrecht, by 1952, sold 1978 through; [G. Cramer, The Hague, to]; Mr. and
Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA.

Indications of Transfer

When possible, how a painting passed from one owner to another is recorded: sale, inheri¬
tance, gift. An owner's name is separated from the next known owner by either a semicolon or
a period, depending on whether the means of transfer is known.

When the means of transfer (sale, bequest, gift) is known, it is noted at the end of the previous
owner's name, followed by a semicolon and the name of the subsequent owner. The name of
each successive owner thereby is immediately noted as a new entry. When it is a bequest or gift,
the relationship of the two owners is included in the record of the previous owner. For
example:

Charles T. Fisher (1880-1963), Detroit, by inheritance to his son; Thomas K. Fisher
(1920-1988), Detroit (sale, London, Christie's, 28 June 1974, lot 79, ill., bought in, sold
1977 through); [Richard L. Feigen, New York, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,

Los Angeles, given 1996 to; LACMA.

238

When a painting is sold through an auction house, the name and location of the seller are
followed by information about the sale placed in parentheses (sale, city, auction house, date of
sale, lot number, and illustration if included). If the identity of the seller is not known, he or
she is identified as "anonymous” For example:

Cornells Hoogendijk (1866-1911), The Hague, by 1899 (sale, Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co.,
14 May 1912, lot 23, ill., sold for 10,000 florins to); Piek, The Hague. Anonymous (sale,
Amsterdam, Frederik Muller & Cie, 20 June 1916, lot 192, sold for 10,400 florins to);
[Frederik Muller & Cie.].

When there is no illustration, the catalogue description may be included following the lot
number to identify the painting. If the painting was sold and the price known, it is noted at
the end within parentheses, followed by a semicolon and the name of the buyer, who may or
may not be identifiable (see previous example).

The same format is followed for dealers. When it is known to whom the dealer sold the
painting, the sale is noted within square brackets. When it is known that the dealer sold the
painting on consignment, that is signaled by the word "through.” For example:

Sidney James van den Bergh (1898-1977), Wassenaar, sold 1972 through; [G. Cramer, The
Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los Angeles.

When the means of transfer of the painting from one owner to another is not known, the
entries are separated by a period, indicating a break in knowledge and the possibility of an
intervening owner.

[Frederik Muller & Cie.]. Michiel Onnes (1878-1972), Kasteel Nijenrode, Breukelen.

[J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam, by 1920]. Miss A. Goekoop, Wassenaar, sold to; [Nystad, The
Hague, sold 1982 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009 to;
LACMA.

Additional biographical information, when known, can be found in the endnotes.

239

APPENDIX

1 (back to entry)

Hendrick Avercamp

(1585-1634)

Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal, ca. 1620
Oil on wood, 14% x 25^ in.

(37.2x64.8 cm)

Signed at right, on sled: HA

PROVENANCE

Jan Carel Elias (1837-1900), graaf van
Lijnden, Arnhem and The Hague, in
1881, bequeathed to his brother-in-law; 1
Johan Willem Frederik (1844-1903), 2
ridder Huyssen van Kattendijke, The
Hague, bequeathed to the son of Jan
Carel Elias; Johan Maurits Dideric
(1864-1930), graaf van Lynden, Huis
Keukenhof, Lisse, bequeathed to his
wife; Aurelia Elisabeth (1875-1949),
gravin van Limburg Stirum, vrouwe van
Noordwijkerhout, Huis Keukenhof,
Lisse, bequeathed to her son; Jan Carel
Elias (1912-2003), graaf van Lynden,
sold after 1951 to; [Nystad Antiquairs,
Lochem, sold by 1954 to]; Sidney James
van den Bergh (1898-1977), Wassenaar,
sold 1972 through; 3 [G. Cramer, The
Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, Los Angeles, partial gift
and partial sale by the heirs 2009 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

The Hague 1881, no. 70, as dated 1622,
lent by J. C. E., graaf van Lijnden;
London 1929, no. 81, ill., lent by Count J.
de Lynden; The Hague 1929, no. 1, ill.,

lent by Douairiere J. graaf van Lynden,
Huize Keukenhof; Brussels 1935, vol. 1,
no. 701; on deposit, Stedelijk Museum,
De Lakenhal, Leiden, 22 Oct. 1943-Aug.
1945; Leiden 1945, no. 40; Leiden
1950-51, no. 2, p. 1, lent by “N. N.” (J. C.
E., graaf van Lynden); 4 Rotterdam 1955,
no. 40, pi. 44, lent by Sidney J. van den
Bergh; Laren 1959, no. 24, fig. 15; 5 Leiden
1965, no. 4, fig. 1:0; on loan, The Metro¬
politan Museum of Art, New York,

6 June-16 Aug. 1972; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 1, pp. 3-7,
ill.; Amsterdam-Boston-Philadelphia
1987-88, no. 7, pp. 259-61, ill.;

Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 1, pp. 3-7, ill.;
Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10
(Washington only), pp. 48,51,70, 73 ,
143 - 44 , 145 , 154 , 159 ,160,161-63, fig. 42,
color details, figs. 58,80,90,173,176,

179,194,198,211,213,214, full p. 141;
Boston-Kansas City 2015-16, no. 70,
pp. 63,250,251 (detail), 252,261, ill.

REFERENCES

Bredius et al. 1897-1904, vol. 3 (1901-4),
pp. 96, ill., 98; BeeldendeKunst 17, no. 6
(April 1930), nos. 43,43a, pp. 43 ~ 44 , ill*;
Welcker 1933, no. S 23, pp. 87,205, pi. X;
“Zomertentoonstelling 1955,” p. 104, fig.
22, as collection S. J. van den Bergh; A. B.
de Vries 1959, pi. 6; Plietzsch i960, p. 86,
fig. 146; The Hague 1962, ill., as collec¬
tion S. J. van den Bergh; A. B. de Vries
1964, pp. 355-57, ill. Ill; A. B. de Vries et
al. 1968, p. 16, ill.; Paris 1972, no. 63,
p. 32; J. Walsh 1974a, p. 348; Welcker and
Hensbroek-van der Poel 1979, nos. S 23,

S 58.1, pp. 87,207,214, fig. xxv, pi. X;
Blankert 1982, p. 28; Keyes 1982,
p. 55023; Sutton 1986, p. 129; Cambridge-
Montreal 1988, p. 59, fig. 2; The Hague-
San Francisco 1990-91, p. 146, fig. 3;
Amsterdam 1993-94, pp- 635-36, fig. 306a;
Washington 1995, pp. 12-13, fig- 4 ;
Westermann 1996, pp. 106-7, fig- 76;

The Hague 2001-2, pp. 58-59, fig. 47,
p. i6on2; Keukenhof 2009, pp. 22-23,
26-27; Marandel and Walsh et al. 2019,
no. 1, pp. 18-21, ill.

NOTES

1 He was made a ridder (knight) in 1814 and in 1818 a
graaf (count, earl). For the Van Lynden family, see
Keukenhof 2009.

2 He married Sara Agatha, baroness van Lynden, in

1874-

3 Sidney James van den Bergh, who was a major
collector of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings,
was a senior manager of Unilever. In 1959 he
served as minister of defense for the Netherlands.

4 According to the exhibition’s label formerly
attached to the back of the panel.

5 The catalogue notes that the lenders to the
exhibition wished to remain anonymous. An
annotation to the title page of a copy of the
catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, however,
identifies the lenders as S. J. van den Bergh,
Wassenaar, and Dr. H. A. Wetzlar, Amsterdam.

2 (back to entry)

Gerrit Adriaensz.
Berckheyde

(1638-I698)

The Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal with the

Flower and Tree Markets in Amsterdam,

ca. 1675

Oil on wood, 14 Vi x 18% in.

(37 x47.6 cm)

Signed lower right, on canal bulkhead:

Gerrit Berck Hey de

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.1

PROVENANCE

H. Becker, 1 Dortmund. Mrs. E. F. Dunn
(sale, London, Sotheby’s, 6 Apr. 1949, lot
72). [Minken, London]. [R de Boer,
Amsterdam, by 1952 until at least 1959]. 2
J. van Duyvendijk, Scheveningen. [Thos.
Agnew and Sons, London]. [Newhouse
Galleries, New York, sold 1973 to];
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
resold 1974 to; [Newhouse Galleries,
New York]. [Robert Noortman, London,
sold 1976 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, given 2009 to; LACMA.

240

EXHIBITIONS

Amsterdam 1952, no. 6, fig. 48; Utrecht
1953 ? no. 10? pi* 48; Dortmund 1954,
no. 54, ill.; Amsterdam 1957-58; Amster¬
dam 1959; New York 1974-75, no. 115,
ill., lent by Newhouse Galleries; Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no.

2, pp. 8-11, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no.
2, pp. 8-11, ill.; The Hague-Washington
2008-9 (Washington only), no. 11, pp.
90-93,218, ill.

REFERENCES

Ebbinge-Wubben 1969, no. 30, p. 35;
Weltkunst 1974; Basel 1987, p. 8203;
Gaskell 1990, pp. 296-9706; Peeters in
Amsterdam 1990-91, pp. 99-101;
Lawrence 1991, p. 59054a; Amsterdam
1997 ? pp- 46-47,96-97; Kloek and
Middelkoop 2012, p. 26.

NOTES

1 Hans Becker was the son of Johan Heinrich Becker,
Amsterdam (b. 1878), director of Tabakkantoor
Stokhuizen en Brom, Amsterdam.

2 Labels formerly on the back of the panel indicate
that the painting was included in De Boer’s
winter exhibition of 1957-58 and summer
exhibition of 1959.

3 (back to entry)

Anthonie van Borssom

(1630/31-1677)

Panoramic Landscape nearRhenen with
theHuis terLede, ca. 1666
Oil on canvas, 20 x 25 1 546 in.

(50.8 x 65.9 cm)

Signed lower right: ABdr/[illegible] 16
[illegible]

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.2

PROVENANCE

Dutch art market, sold ca. 1914 to;
Michiel Maximiliaan van Valkenburg
(1866-1950), 1 Huis Ross, Lochem, Laren
(as by Adriaen van de Velde), sold 1944
to; [Goudstikker/Miedl, Amsterdam,
taken by Alois Miedl (1903-1990) to
Bilbao, Spain, recovered in his posses¬
sion in Bilbao, 1945, and returned to];
Michiel Maximiliaan van Valkenburg; 2

[G. Cramer, The Hague, by 1970, sold
1971 as by Anthonie van Borssom to]; Mr.
and Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los
Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Rotterdam 1938, no. 152, p. 37, p. 104,
fig. 163, as by Adriaen van de Velde;

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 3, pp. 12-14, ill., as by Van Borssom;
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 3, pp. 12-14, ill-?
as by Van Borssom.

REFERENCES

Thieme-Becker 1907-50, vol. 34 (1940),
p. 198, as by Adriaen van de Velde; The
Hague 1970, p. 27, ill., as by Adriaen van
de Velde; Sumowski 1983, vol. 1, no. 193,
pp. 428, ill. 436, as by Van Borssom.

NOTES

1 Michiel Maximiliaan van Valkenburg was a lawyer
in Rotterdam. Following his death in 1950, a sale
of his collection was held by Nijstad, Lochem,

on 29-30 May 1951. The Carter painting was not
included in the sale.

2 Archive of the Netherlands Art Property
Foundation (Stichting Nederlandisch Kunstbezit,
SNK), The Hague, Aangifte-formulier, no. 3531,
dated 1 December 1945. Alois Miedl was the Nazi
banker who purchased the Goudstikker firm in
Amsterdam after Jacques Goudstikker fled the
Netherlands and then died in 1940. Miedl sold
approximately six hundred paintings to
Hermann Goring (1893-1946). In a letter from
Cramer to Carter dated 27 May 1971 (Hans Cramer
Records, Box 110, Folder 4, Getty Research
Institute), Cramer notes, “The picture came from
the Miedl estate and I bought it in Germany.”
Cramer’s exact source for the picture is not
known.

4 (back to entry)

Ambrosius Bosschaert
the Elder

(1573-1621)

Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge , 1619
Oil on copper, 11 x 9^6 in. (27.9 x 23 cm)
Signed and dated lower right, on the
sill: AB1619

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.7

PROVENANCE

Ulric Palm, Stockholm, before 1934, sold
through; 1 [G. Stenman, Stockholm, to];
Dr. Einar Perman (1893-1976), Stock¬
holm, by 1936. Anne-Marie (Mrs. John)
Goelet (1900-1988), New York and
Amblainville, Oise, France, in 1963. 2

Private collection, Boston, 1966-67.
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, sold
1976 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Amsterdam 1934, no. 251, p. 20, ill., as
Stockholm private collection; Paris
1936 - 37 ? no. 3, pp. 6-7, pi. 1, lent by Dr.
Perman; 3 Philadelphia 1963, frontis¬
piece, p. 105; on loan, Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston, 1966-67; San Francisco-
Toledo-Boston 1966-67, no. 98, ill.; on
loan, The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, 6 Apr.-July 1976; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 4, pp. 15-
19, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 4,
pp. 15-19, ill.; San Francisco-Baltimore-
London 1997-98, no. 75, pp. 46,48,
356 - 59 , 452 , ill.

REFERENCES

Bergstrom 1947, p. 72, fig. 51, ill. 1; Van
Gelder in Oxford 1950, p. 54, under no.
15; Paris 1952, p. 40; Bol 1955? PP-103-4?
107, fig. 7; Hairs 1955, p. 90; Leymarie
1956, p. 75, ill. p. 76, as Perman collec¬
tion; Bergstrom 1956, pp. 62,65,69,
frontispiece, as Perman collection; Bol
i960, no. 46, pp. 20,30-31? 67, pi. 30;
Mitchell 1973, p. 57, as belonging to Mrs.
Goelet; Amsterdam 1977, p- 62; Bol 1981,
pp. 524,526, fig. 5; Shore 1980, n.p.;

J. Walsh 1981, p. 389, ill. XIV; Bol 1982,

PP- 49 ? 50, fig. 5; Segal 1984? p. 38; Hairs
1985, pp. 207,210,459, mistakenly as
still in the collection of Mrs. Goelet;
Goedde 1989, p. 44n22; Segal 1990,
under no. 34; The Hague-San Francisco
1990-91? P-109; Bol 1993? ill- p- 44 ;
Amsterdam 1993-94, p- 93? fig-162;
Taylor 1995, p. 137; Roland Michel et al.
2002, p. 5, fig. 3; Oxford 2003, under
no. 17, pp. 178,179n2; “The Gift of Mr.
and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 20, fig. 1;
Marandel 2004; Pennisi 2007, p. 155,
fig. 4.11; Meyers 2011, p. 367, fig. 8;
Salem-San Francisco-Houston 2011-12,
p. 94; Lokin 2016, p. 26, fig. 5.

241

NOTES

1 Amsterdam 1934 identifies the lender as a private
collection in Stockholm, previously Palm.
According to a letter dated 26 January 1984 from
Dr. Einar Perman to Mr. and Mrs. Carter
(Bosschaert object file. Department of European
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), Ulric Palm was
for a long time the art adviser to Bukowski, the
leading art gallery of Stockholm. Palm was a good
friend of Perman, who purchased the painting
from Palm through the dealer Stenman.

2 The Goelet family lived in France and New York.

A letter dated 23 December 1981 from the still-life
scholar Ingvar Bergstrom to Scott Schaeffer, then
curator of European paintings at LACMA
(Bosschaert object file. Department of European
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA) remarks that he
had known the painting for “nearly fifty years. I
am glad now to know its present whereabouts.”

3 Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82 and Los
Angeles 1992-93, no. 4, p. 14, mistakenly state that
the painting was included as no. 11 in Het
Hollandse stilleven, Stedelijk van Abbemuseum,
Eindhoven, 1957, and the owner is identified as
Sidney van den Bergh. According to the
illustration in the catalogue of the Van den Bergh
collection (A. B.

de Vries et al. 1968, no. 28, ill.), that painting
represents a bouquet in a niche.

5 (back to entry)

Jan Dirksz. Both

(ca. 1618-1652)

Landscape with a Draftsman,

ca. 1645-50

Oil on canvas, 40% x 46% in.

(103.5 x 117-8 cm)

Signed lower left: JBoth

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.3

PROVENANCE

[Possibly Agnew’s, London, 1919]. 1
[Shickman Gallery, New York, sold 1968
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Malcolm Farmer, Jr.,
Providence, RI, sold 1977 to; [Shickman
Gallery, New York, sold 1979 to];

[Nystad Gallery, The Hague, sold 1979
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

New York 1968, no. 11; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 5, pp.
20-23, ill.; on loan. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, Apr.-July
1985; New York 1985, no. 8, pp. 77-79,

ill.; New York 1985a, p. 20, ill. p. 20, and
cover; Montreal 1990, no. 15, pp. 82-83,
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 5, pp.
20-23, ill.; Madrid 1994-95, no-12, pp.
86-87, ill-

REFERENCES

Burke 1976, no. 96, pp. 238-39, as “An
earlier version of the painting now in
Montreal, Coll. D. Carter (cat. no. 76)”; 2
Amsterdam-B os ton-Philadelphia
1987-88, p. 279, fig. 1; Harwood 1988,
p. 62, fig. 32; Williamstown-Sarasota
1994-95, p- 21, fig. 13; San Francisco-
Baltimore-London 1997-98, p. 345, fig. 1.

NOTES

1 According to the mount of an otherwise
undescribed photograph in the Witt Library,
London. The photograph may also represent the
second version of the painting owned by David
Carter. The painting is possibly identical with no.
5324. “Both, Landscape with Figures,” acquired by
Agnew’s from A. Wertheimer on 5 February 1919
and sold to Liggatt on 30 August 1923. That
painting is described as 39 x 50 in. Records of
Thomas Agnew & Sons, Ltd., Getty Research
Institute.

2 Burke suggests that the Edward Carter painting,
which was unknown to Hofstede de Groot, may
have been HdG 1907-28, vol. 9 (1926), no. 94a, but
Walsh and Schneider in Los Angeles-Boston-New
York 1981-82, p. 23n6, note that the dimensions
and the location of the signatures differ
significantly.

O (back to entry)

Dirck de Bray

(ca. 1635-1694)

Flowers in a Glass Vase, 1671
Oil on wood, 19 14 x 14% in.

(48.9 x 36.5 cm)

Signed and dated lower left: 1671D. D.
Brayf

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.4

PROVENANCE

Anonymous (sale, London, Sotheby’s,

25 Feb. 1948, lot 92, as dated 1673, ill.;
sold for £2,100 to); P. T. Kroyer. 1 Anony¬
mous (sale, London, Christie’s, 9 Apr.
1954? lot 2, as dated 1673; bought in and

later sold to); 2 [C. Duits, London, no. 383,
owned with Hallsborough Gallery,
London, sold 1954 to]; Sidney James van
den Bergh (1898-1977), 3 Wassenaar, sold
1973 through; [G. Cramer, The Hague,
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Laren 1959, no. 31, fig. 18; 4 Leiden 1965,
no. 6; San Francisco-Toledo-Boston
1966-67, no. 102, ill.; on loan, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
16 Apr-15 Aug. 1973; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 6, pp.
24-27, ill.; The Hague-San Francisco
1990-91, no. 102, pp. 186-90, ill.; Los
Angeles 1992-93, no. 6, pp. 24-27, ill.;
Amsterdam-Cleveland 1999-2000
(Cleveland only), no. 69, pp. 263-65, ill.;
Haarlem-London 2008, no. 45, pp. 120,
151, ill. 121.

REFERENCES

Bernt 1960-62, vol. 4 (1962), no. 38, ill.;

A. B. de Vries 1964, pp. 354~55? ph II;

A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, no. 30, ill.; Bol
1969? P- 334 ? fig- 302; Bernt 1969-70,
vol. 1 (1969), no. 178, ill.; Mitchell 1973,
p. 61, as in the Van den Bergh collection;
Bernt 1979-80, vol. 1 (1979), no. 192, ill.;
Rickey 1981, p. 26, ill.; The Hague 1992,
p. 68, ill.

NOTES

1 According to the printed record of the results of
the sale. The name is variously recorded: the entry
in the sale catalogue itself is annotated “2100
Kruyer.” An unidentified article about the results
of the sale attached to a copy of the sale catalogue
at the Getty Research Institute presumably
misspelled the name of the buyer as “Krager.”
Haarlem-London 2008, no. 45, p. 151, identifies the
buyer as R E. Kruyer.

2 According to an annotated photo mount from
Douwes now at the Getty Research Institute.

3 Sidney James van den Bergh was a major collector
of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings. He was a
senior manager of Unilever and served as minister
of defense for the Netherlands in 1959. A. B. de
Vries 1964 and A. B. de Vries et. al. 1968.

4 The catalogue notes that the lenders to the
exhibition wished to remain anonymous. An
annotation to the title page of a copy of the
catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, however,
identifies S. J. van den Bergh, Wassenaar, as one of
the lenders to the exhibition.

242

^ (back to entry)

Jan van de Cappelle

(1626-1679)

Ships in a Calm, early 1650s
Oil on canvas, 31 x 43 in.

(78.7 x109.2 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.6

PROVENANCE

Messrs. Murrieta (sale, London,
Christie’s, 14 May 1892, lot 126, sold to);
[P. & D. Colnaghi, London]. R. D. Walker,
London (sale, London, Christie’s, 1 July
1907, lot 147, as “Dutch School,” sold to);
[A. Buttery, London]. Ernest James
Wythes (d. 1949), 1 Copped Hall, Essex,
by inheritance to his daughter; Barbara
Dorothy Wythes (b. 1896, m. 1920 to
Francis Guy Robert Elwes), by inheri¬
tance to her son; Major Robert Valentine
Gervase Elwes (1922-1959), Oxfordshire,
by inheritance to his father; 2 Col.
Francis Guy Robert Elwes (1895-1966),
O.B.E. (estate sale, London, Sotheby’s,
26 Mar. 1969, lot 26, sold to); [David
Koetser, Zurich, sold 1971 to]; Mr.
and Mrs. Edward William Carter,

Los Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-New York-Boston 1981-82,
no. 7, pp. 29-31, ill.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 7, pp. 29-31, ill.; on loan,
LACMA,

28 Oct.-9 Dec. 1996.

REFERENCES

Graves 1918-21, vol. 3 (1970), p. 263; HdG
1908-27, vol. 7 (1923), no. 123; Russell
1975, no. 123, p. 78, fig. 86; J. Walsh 1981,
p. 384; Minneapolis-Toledo-Los Angeles
1990-91, p. 106; “The Gift of Mr. and
Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21.

NOTES

1 According to the dealer David Carritt, London
(letter to Edward Carter, 14 Feb. 1973), “While still
a student Wythes inherited a huge fortune from
his father, a railway builder. One of his first acts
was to build a vast yacht on which to take his
fellow-undergraduates to Italy and other centers
of culture— Wythes didn’t exactly collect. He
bought all the things that retired gentlemen of
his time bought, including a Botticelli and a fake
Jan van Eyck, but his best picture was probably
the one in your lab [the Van de Cappelle].”

2 Major Robert V. G. Elwes died without children.

(back to entry)

Pieter Claesz.

(1596/97-1660)

Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread,

1647

Oil on wood, 1 7% x 23 14 in.

(44.8x58.7 cm)

Signed and dated at right: PC/164/

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.19

PROVENANCE

Private collection, the Netherlands.
Anonymous (sale, Cologne, Lempertz,

1 June 1978, lot 37, ill.). [J. Hoogsteder,
The Hague, sold 1980 to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 8, pp. 32-35, ill.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 8, pp. 32-35? HI.

REFERENCES

Vroom 1980-99, vol. 1 (1980), p. 47,
fig- 55? vol. 2 (1980), p. 34? no. 141;

J. Walsh 1981, pp. 387, pi. XII; Los
Angeles 1990-91? PP- 153 ~ 54 ? fig- 39 a;
Brunner-Bulst 2004, no. 159, p. 294;
Amsterdam 2007, p. io4n4, no. 46;
Moscow 2009, p. 81.

9 (back to entry)

Adriaen Coorte

(act. 1683-1707)

Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan-Li
Bowl, 1704

Oil on paper mounted on wood,
liYs x 8 7 /s in. (29.5 x 22.5 cm)

Signed and dated lower left, on edge of
stone table: A Coorte /1704

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.5

PROVENANCE

[Goudstikker, Amsterdam, 1933]. Anony¬
mous (sale, London, Christie’s, 28 June
1974, lot 76, sold for 12,500 guineas to);
[Newhouse Gallery, New York, sold 1974
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Amsterdam 1933, no. 68; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 9, pp.
36-39, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 9,
PP- 36 - 39 ? ill-

REFERENCES

Vorenkamp 1933, p. 72; Van Gelder in
Oxford 1950, p. 69; Bol 1952-53? no. 38,
pp. 199,202,220, fig. 10, as with
Goudstikker as of 1933; WCA, vol. 16
(1974), p. 80; Bol 1977, no. A57, pp. 8,
I5n27,22,42,36, fig. 31; Mandle 1979,
p. 326; Bol 1980, pp. 135? I37ni2, fig. 11;
Shore 1980, vol. 2, no. 166, ill.; Bol 1982,
p. 11, fig. 11; WCA, vol. 37 (1985-87), p. 85;
Korteweg and Vels Heijn 1992, pp. 63,
180, ill.; Slive 1995, p. 319; Baltimore
1999? p. 36n6; Meijer 1999, p. 93; Dibbits
2004, p. i64n2o; The Hague 2008, no. 53,
p. 112, ill.

IO (back to entry)

Aelbert Cuyp

(l620-l69l)

The Flight into Egypt, mid- to late 1650s
Oil on wood, z6 s /s x 35 Vz in.

(67.6 x 90.2 cm)

Signed lower left: A. Cuyp

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
AC1996.150.1

PROVENANCE

Servad, Amsterdam (sale, Amsterdam,
Cornells Ploos van Amstel, Hendrik de
Winter, and Jan Yver, 25 June 1778, lot
48, sold [or bought in?] for 560 florins
to); [Jan Yver, Amsterdam]. 1 Stanislaus II
Augustus Poniatowski (1732-1798),
Warsaw and Saint Petersburg (r. as king
of Poland 1764-95). 2 Prince Charles
Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord
(1754-1838), Paris (sale, Paris, M. Henry,
7 July 1817, lot 10, as formerly “Roi de
Pologne,” sold en bloc before the sale
to); [William Buchanan (1777-1864),
London]. [John Webb, London, valued
at 1,050 guineas]. 3 [William Buchanan,
London, sold for 1,100 guineas to]; 4
Alexander Baring (1774-1848), later 1st
Baron Ashburton, London and the
Grange, Northington, Hampshire, by
1819, by descent to; Francis Denzil
Edward Baring (1866-1938), 5th Baron
Ashburton, the Grange, Northington,
Hampshire, sold 1907 en bloc to;

243

[syndicate of Thomas Agnew & Sons,
London; Arthur J. Sulley & Co., London;
and Asher Wertheimer, London,
probably sold to]; Alfred de Rothschild
(1842-1918), Hal ton Manor, by inheri¬
tance to; Rothschild heirs, sold in 1924
to; [Arthur Ruck, London, and M.
Knoedler, London and New York, sold
1925 to]; Charles T. Fisher (1880-1963),
Detroit, 5 by inheritance to his son;
Thomas K. Fisher (1920-1988), Detroit
(sale, London, Christie’s, 28 June 1974,
lot 79, ill., bought in, sold 1977
through); [Richard L. Feigen, New York,
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 1996 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

London 1819, no. 105, lent by Alexander
Baring; New York 1925, no. 2, ill.;

Detroit 1926, no. 24, ill.; Detroit 1927,
no. 31; Detroit 1929, p. viii, no. 16, ill.;
Detroit 1939, no. 10; New York 1939,
no. 66, p. 32, pi. 77; Detroit 1949, no. 6,
pi. 7; Los Angeles-Boston-New York
1981-82, no. 10, pp. 40-45, ill.; Los
Angeles 1992-93, no. 10, pp. 40-45, ill-;
Washington-London-Amsterdam
2001-2, no. 41, pp. 176-77,207-8, ill.

REFERENCES

Buchanan 1824, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 321-22;
Smith 1829-42, vol. 5 (1834), no. 132,
pp. 320-21; 6 Waagen 1838, vol. 2, p. 283;
Waagen 1854, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 110; HdG
1908-27, vol. 2 (1909), no. 409, p. 123;
Holmes 1930, no. 27, pp. 167,185, fig. 4;
Frankfurter 1939, no. 68, fig. 105;

J. Walsh 1974a, p. 349023; J. Walsh 1981,
p. 386, fig. 10; Montreal 1990, p. 87, fig.
39; Chong 1993, no. 168, pp. 422-23; “The
Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21;
Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, pp. 140,142003-4.

NOTES

1 Since Jan Yver was one of the dealers involved in
the sale, he may have been acting as an agent for
Poniatowski or another buyer.

2 For Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski, see London
1992, p. 36: “After the King’s death his collections
were gradually dispersed. On departure from
Poland in 1795 he had taken 100 of his favourite
paintings to St. Petersburg: some he had given
away, others were sold on his death to pay debts.
The sale of his collections continued in the
following years until 1821.”

3 HdG 1907-28, vol. 2 (1909), no. 409, cites
Buchanan as the buyer from the Talleyrand sale,
followed by John Webb. He also cites Buchanan as
the seller to Baring. If the latter is true, Buchanan
may have been working with Webb, who was a
dealer. Webb also purchased from Buchanan
Gabriel Metsu’s A Woman Seated at a Table and a Man
Tuning a Violin (The National Gallery, London, inv.
no. NG 838), formerly in the Talleyrand collection.

4 An annotation to the entry for the painting in
a copy of the 1817 Talleyrand-Perigord sale
catalogue at the State Hermitage Museum, Saint
Petersburg, notes, “retenu a 20000 estime 12000
vendu par M. Buchanan a Alx. Baring, 1100 guin.”
Getty Provenance Index, Sale Catalogs Database.

5 In 1908 Charles Thomas Fisher and his six
brothers founded Fisher Body Company in
Detroit, an automotive coach builder for which he
served as president. The company is now an
operating division of General Motors.

6 The description by Smith is confused but can be
identified with the painting sold by Talleyrand:

“A Landscape, with a high road, bounded on the
left by a chain of lofty rocks, and skirted on the
opposite side by some high trees. An old man
leading an ass, on which is a young woman with a
child in her arms, is on the road; a little beyond
them are a farmer on a piebald horse, and a
herdsman driving four cows; and still farther are
a man and a woman with a flock of sheep. The
opposite side is composed of a river, bounded by
high hills, some of which are adorned with
buildings. The glowing warmth of a brilliant
sunset pervades the scene. This is a studied and
highly finished production. 2 ft. 2 in. by 2 ft. 11
in.—P. Formerly in the cabinet of the King of
Poland. Collection of M. Servad, Amst. 1778 ...
Prince Talleyrand, 1817; bought by John Webb,
Esq.... Now in the collection of Alexander
Baring, Esq.”

11 (back to entry)

Jan van Goyen

(1596-1656)

View of Dordrecht, 1645
Oil on wood, 25% x 38 in.

(65.7x96.5 cm)

Signed and dated lower center, on the
rowboat: VGOYEN1645

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.6

PROVENANCE

Lord St. Leonards, Boyle Farm, Thames
Ditton, Surrey (probably estate sale,
Thames Ditton, E. & H. Lumley, 1 Nov.
1886, lot 1018, as “Outward Port of
Rotterdam, 37^ x 25 Yz”; sold for £180
to); 1 [Martin Colnaghi (1821-1908),
London]. 2 S. E. Kennedy, Esq. (sale,
London, Christie’s, 6 July 1917, lot 13,
as “from the Collection of Lord St.

Leonards,” sold for £1,400 to); [Thos.
Agnew & Sons, London, stock no. 4966,
sold July 1919 to]; [F. Muller & Co.,
Amsterdam]; H. E. Smidt van Gelder,
Aerdenhout (near Haarlem), by 1919,
sold 1979 through; [G. Cramer, The
Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009
to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 11, pp. 46-49, ill.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 11, pp. 46-49, ill-

REFERENCES

HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 95; 3 H.-U.
Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), no. 300, ill.;

J. Walsh 1981, p. 385, fig. 8; Falkenburg
1997 , P- 63, fig. 52.

NOTES

1 This is the only painting by Van Goyen known to
have been in St. Leonards’s sale. The reference to
Lord St. Leonards comes from the Kennedy sale
catalogue. HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 95,
incorrectly identifies the St. Leonards and
Kennedy painting as a similar View of Dordrecht by
Van Goyen that was later in the collection of
Charles Butler. That painting is, however, H.-U.
Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973), no. 310 (Toledo
Museum of Art, Ohio, inv. no. 1933.27).

2 According to the annotation “M. Col” in the copy
of the St. Leonards’s sale catalogue at the Getty
Research Institute.

3 Incorrectly confuses the provenance of the
painting with that currently in Toledo. See n. 1
above.

12 (back to entry)

Jan van Goyen

(1596-1656)

View of Arnhem, 1646
Oil on wood, 17M6 x 21 14 in.

( 43-7 X 54 cm)

Signed and dated lower right edge:
VGOYEN 16(46]

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.20

PROVENANCE

[Probably H. O. Miethke, Vienna, sold
1896 to]; 1 Cornelis Hoogendijk (1866-
1911), 2 The Hague, by 1899 (sale,
Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., 14 May

244

1912, lot 23, ill., sold for 10,000 florins
to); Piek, The Hague. Anonymous (sale,
Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., 20 June
1916, lot 192, sold for 10,400 florins to); 3
[F. Muller & Co.]. Michiel Onnes (1878-
1972), Kasteel Nijenrode, Breukelen. 4
[J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam, by 1920].
Miss A. Goekoop, 5 Wassenaar, sold to;
[Nystad, The Hague, sold 1982 to];

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,

Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

The Hague 1899, no. 17, p. 5; The Hague
1920, no. 43, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93,
no. 30, pp. 120-23, ill.

REFERENCES

HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 9, pp.
14-15; H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973),
no. 280, ill.; Sutton 1990-91, p. 109,

%• 4 -

NOTES

1 This painting was probably part of a collection of
old master paintings Miethke sold en bloc in
October 1896 to Hoogendijk for 60,000 florins.
Heijbroek and Wouthuysen 1999, p. 269.

2 For Hoogendijk, see Heijbroek and Wouthuysen
1999 * PP- 269-70. Cornelis Hoogendijk came from
a Reformed Calvinist family in Krimpen aan den
IJssel. Before completing his doctoral exams for a
law degree from the University of Leiden,
Hoogendijk enrolled at the Rijksacademie van
Beeldende Kunsten in Amsterdam, where he
studied painting for one to two years. Between
1889 and 1900 he put together an unusually large
collection of paintings, drawings, and prints of
old and modern masters. A large part of the
collection, including this painting, was exhibited
at Pulchri Studio in The Hague in 1899. In 1900
Hoogendijk was committed to a psychiatric
hospital in Ermelo, where he died in 1911. From
1906 until 1912, when it was sold through R
Muller & Co., part of the collection was on loan to
the Rijksmuseum. This painting does not,
however, match any of the four paintings by Van
Goyen recorded by the Rijksmuseum as on loan
from the collection. I am grateful to Pieter Roelofs,
curator of seventeenth-century Dutch painting at
the Rijksmuseum, for checking the archives of
the museum.

3 The specific seller of the painting is not identified.
The catalogue lists as sellers: M. Dr. W. A.

Royaards, conseiller de legation de S. M. la Reine
des Pays-Bas a Sofia; Mme Vve. S. Paleologo,
Amsterdam; Mme Vve. W. J. Bosch Verhagen,
Utrecht; Mme Vve. G. C. J. van Reenen van
Lexmond, Loenen; M. A. Groutars, Maastricht;
and M. Mr. A. C. A. Jacobse Boudewijnse,
Middelburg. The painting may have been bought
in since Muller was also the auctioneer.

4 According to H.-U. Beck 1972-87, vol. 2 (1973),

no. 280, p. 135. Michiel Onnes, an Amsterdam coffee
merchant of German descent, acquired Nijenrode
Castle in 1907 and restored and expanded it in
1920. In 1930 he sold it to the art dealer Jacques
Goudstikker. The painting was not included in
the 10 July 1923 sale of the Onnes collection by
Ant. W. M. Mensing (F. Muller & Co.), Amsterdam.

5 Possibly related to Adriaan Goekoop (1859-1914)
and his wife, Johanne Goekoop de Jongh
(1877-1946), the first Dutch woman to earn a
doctorate in art history. The couple, who married
in 1905, lived outside The Hague at Sorgvliet,
the former home of Jacob Cats. See cat. no. 2ini4.
See also cat. no. 21.

13 (back to entry)

Willem Claesz. Heda

(1594-1680)

Still Life with Tobacco, Beer; and Wine ,

1637

Oil on wood, 1 6 5 /s x 21% in.

(42.2 x 54.3 cm)

Signed and dated left of center, on edge

of table: HEDA /1637

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

M.2003.108.4

PROVENANCE

[Jean Lenthal, Paris]. [P. de Boer,
Amsterdam, in 1949 until at least 1951].

J. M. Redele, Dordrecht, by 1952, sold
1978 through; [G. Cramer, The Hague,
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Rotterdam 1951, no. 20; Paris 1952, no. 37,
pi. XVII, lent by J. M. Redele; Rome 1954,
no. 51; Milan 1954, no. 58; Dordrecht
1954, no. 52; Rotterdam 1955, no. 73,
p. 39, pi. 50; Eindhoven 1957-58, no. 28;
Luxembourg-Liege 1957, no. 29, pp.
24-25, pi. 17; Paris i960, no. 24; San
Francisco-Toledo-Boston 1966-67,
no. 101, p. 148, ill.; Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82, no. 12, pp. 50-53, ill.;
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 12, pp. 50-53, ill.

REFERENCES

Leymarie 1956, fig. 173; Boucaud 1958,
p. 229; Sterling 1959, p. 52; “The Gift of
Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21.

14 (back to entry)

Jan van der Heyden

(1637-1712)

The Herengracht, Amsterdam, Viewed
from theLeliegracht, ca. 1666-70
Oil on wood, 13 14 x 15% in.
(33-7x39-7011)

Signed at the right, on the quay: VH

PROVENANCE

The artist and his wife, Sara ter Hiel (d.
1712): “een gesichje van de Bocht van de
Oude Heeregracht,” mentioned in the
inventory attached to the 5 Dec. 1692
will of Jan van der Heyden and Sara ter
Hiel, living on the Koestraat,
Amsterdam, and as “de bogt van de
Heeregragt met de Warmoessluys int
Verschiet,” valued at 50 florins, in the
inventory of the estate of Sara ter Hiel,
Amsterdam, 18 May 1712, by bequest to
her son; 1 Samuel van der Heyden (d.
1729), Amsterdam, by bequest 1729 to
his sister; Sara van der Heyden (d. 1738),
Amsterdam. 2 Jacob Crammer Simonsz.,
Amsterdam (estate sale, Amsterdam,

Van der Schley, Yver, and Schelte, 25 Nov.
1778, lot 10, as “op panel hoog 13 Vz,
breed 15 Vz duim. Een Gezigt binnen
Amsterdam, verbeeldende de
Heeregragt, van de Lelysluys af te zien,
naar de Warmoe gragt, de Son Ligten
zyn 'er Geestig in waargenoomen, en de
Beeldjes en Vaartuygen; gestoffeert,
door A van den Velde, Dit Stuk is zeer
bevallig en plaisant geschilderd”). Louis
Cesar de la Baume Le Blanc, due de la
Valliere (1708-1780), Paris (sale, Paris, A.
Paillet, 21-23 Feb. 1781, lot 67, as “La vue
d’un Canal de Hollande, borde de
maisons & plante d’arbres; plusieurs
barques chargees de marchandises, sont
arretees pres du trottoir, ou sont
distributes diverses figures. La variete
dans la construction des maisons, la ton
de couleur & les moindres details, sont
rendus avec la plus grande finesse & une
exacte verite. La reflexion des objets
dans feau, contribue a une harmonie
parfaite, & sont annoncer ce Tableau
comme un des plus finis de cet habile

245

Peintre. Haut. 13 pouc. 6 lig. larg. 16
pouc. 6 lig. B.,” sold [bought in?] to);

[A. J. Paillet, Paris]. M. B. de B[oynes],
Paris (sale, Paris, 15-10 Mar. 1785, lot 42,
as “Ce Tableau, Tun des plus fins de ce
maitre, represente le cote interieur d’un
canal des villes de la Hollande, sur
lequel on voit des barques & des cignes;
au-dela du mur du quai de ce canal
s’elevent de grands arbres a travers les
percees desquels on decouvre de beaux
batimens de brique, & decores des
ornemens qui appartiennent a FArchi-
tecture, rendus avec tout Pinteret & Part
que Pon admire dans les productions de
ce maitre; le ciel est parfaitement bien
rendu, ainsi que les figures que Pon voit
aux differens endroits de ce tableau.
Hauteur 16 pouces, largeur 13 pouces. B.
Il vient de la vente de M. le Due de la
Valliere, n°. [67-1900]”). 3 Chevallier
F[erdinando] Meazza (1837-1913), Milan
(sale, Milan, Riblet, 15-19 Apr. 1884, lot
186, ill.). [Antoine Baer, sold Feb. 1885
to]; 4 Albert Lehmann, Paris (sale, Galerie
Georges Petit, Paris, 12-13 June 1925, lot
255, ill., sold for 112,500 francs to); M.
Guiraud. 5 Esmond, Paris. 6 [Otto
Wertheimer (1896-1973), Paris, in 1945,
sold by 1950 to]; 7 [Duits, London, sold
by 1953 for 85,000 guilders to]; Sidney
James van den Bergh (1898-1977),
Wassenaar, sold 1971 through; 8 [G.
Cramer, The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
partial gift and partial sale by the heirs
2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Amsterdam 1906, no. 62, lent by Albert
Lehmann, Paris; Birmingham 1950,
no. 25, lent by Duits; Paris 1950-51, no. 36,
pi. 26; Zurich 1953, no. 53; Rome 1954.
no. 54; Milan 1954, no. 62, pi. 65; New
York-Toledo-Toronto 1954-55, no. 38,
ill.; Rotterdam 1955, no. 75, pi. 145, lent
by Sidney James van den Bergh; 9 Tel
Aviv 1959, no. 51; Laren 1959, no. 53,
pi. 27; Leiden 1965, no. 24; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 13, pp.
54-57, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 13,
PP- 54 - 57 , ill.; Greenwich-Amsterdam
2006-7, no. 17, pp. 47,70, ill.

REFERENCES

Probably Bredius 1912, pp. 132,135; HdG
1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 22, p. 337;
Bruyn 1950; A. B. de Vries 1964, p. 357,

ill.; J. Rosenberg, Slive, and Ter Kuile
1966, p. 193, pi. 164B, 1972 ed., p. 332,
fig. 263; A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, p. 69, ill.;
Wagner 1971, no. 11, p. 69; Haverkamp-
Begemann 1973, p. 401; Slive 1995, p. 275,
fig- 375 ; Briels 1997, PP- Hh 336 , pi. 211;

A. Walsh 2007, p. 111, pi. 3; Marandel and
Walsh et al. 2019, no. 7, pp. 38-39, ill.

NOTES

1 Bredius 1912, pp. 132 and 135, respectively. For a
further discussion of the distribution of the
possessions of Jan van der Heyden and Sara ter
Hiel, see I. H. Van Eeghen 1973. According to the
1692 will, the painting was to be given to their
daughter Sara van der Heyden. In 1712, however,
the painting was given to their son Samuel.

2 HdG 1908-27, vol. 8 (1927), no. 22, p. 337, cited as
previous provenance of the Carter painting, “Een
Gezicht langs de Heeregragt. Zeer uitvoerig op
Paneel geschilderd, en door A. van de Velde
gestoffeerd. Hoog 15 14 , breed 16 duim”
(anonymous sale, Amsterdam, van der Linden
and de Winter, 5 June 1765, lot 27, sold for 175-0
florins, to Hoogenhuysen for Loquet). That
painting is probably identical with lot 134 in the
sale 22 September 1783 of paintings owned by
Pieter Locquet by Van der Schley, De Bosch, Ploos
van Amstel, De Winter, and Yver. The Locquet
painting is described in similar terms as that in
the 1765 sale: “15 14 x 15 14 duim, panel. In dit
natuurlyk stuk vertoond zich een Gezicht langs
de Heer-Gragt te Amsterdam ziende gedeeltelyk
naar de Lely-Gragt, gestoffeert met verscheide
Wooningen, Geboomte, en diversche Beeldjes, dit
stuk is niet min bevallig dan Konstig geschildert,
en het streelende zonligt; doed een zeer schooner
uitwerking,” sold for 405 florins to Nyman.
Because the view is described as toward the
Lely-Gragt, it cannot be the Carter painting,
which is described as looking/ram the Leliegracht.

3 The number and price are handwritten. The sale
was said to be from the cabinet of M. B. de B.***
Various copies of the catalogue are annotated
“Boynes.”

4 According to an annotated catalogue of the 1925
Lehmann sale. Advertisements in La chronique des
arts et de la curiosite in 1880 identify Antoine Baer as
an expert of tableaux ancienesetmodernes located at
2 rue Lafhtte.

5 According to an annotated copy of the catalogue
at the Getty Research Institute. Probably a
reference to S. Guiraud, Paris. According to Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, citing
information from a photo mount at the Witt
Library, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London,
Alfred de Rothschild owned the painting between
Lehmann and Beurnonville. This cannot be
correct, however, since Baron Alfred Charles de
Rothschild (1842-1918), London and Halton,
Hertfordshire, died in 1918. The reference is
probably to Houses on the Herengracht that is still in
the Rothschild collection at Waddesdon Manor.
Baron de Beurnonville, who seems to have owned
a major collection of Dutch and Flemish
paintings, had a number of sales in Paris during
the 1880s.

6 According to Wagner 1971.

7 According to A. B. de Vries (orally. The Hague,
1978, note in file), Lehmann sold the painting to
Wertheimer in Paris, who sold it to Duits, who
sold it to Van den Bergh for “85,000.” If
Wertheimer did acquire the painting in 1925 from
the Lehmann sale, it is unclear where it was
during the early 1940s. Otto Wertheimer
(1879-1972) was born in Buehl Baden, Germany,
and died in Paris. He held a position in the
department of the history of art at the University
of Berlin until 1933, when as a Jew he lost his job
and moved to Paris. Wertheimer’s parents were
deported to concentration camps. Although his
father and sisters died during the war, Otto
Wertheimer, who spent part of World War II in
the Vichy government zone and part in
Switzerland, was able to obtain his mother’s
release from a concentration camp, probably
through the payment of a bribe.

8 Sidney J. van den Bergh, a major collector of
seventeenth-century Dutch paintings, was a
senior manager of Unilever and Dutch minister
of defense in 1959. See A. B. de Vries 1964, Leiden
1965, and A. B. de Vries et al. 1968, and
introduction to the present volume. Van den
Bergh sold a number of paintings to the Carters
through G. Cramer, The Hague. Sales of his
collection also took place in Amsterdam in 1975
and London in 1979.

9 The catalogue notes that the lenders to the
exhibition wished to remain anonymous. An
annotation to the title page of a copy of the
catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor
Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague, however,
identifies the lenders as S. J. van den Bergh,
Wassenaar, and Dr. H. A. Wetzlar, Amsterdam.

15 , 1 6 (back to entries)

Meindert Hobbema

(1638-1709)

Landscape with Anglers and a Distant

Town , ca. 1664-65

Oil on wood, 9% x 12 Vz in.

(23.8x31.8 cm)

Signed lower left: m. hobbema

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.7

Meindert Hobbema

(1638-1709)

Landscape with a Footbridge,

ca. 1664-65

Oil on wood, 9% x 12 Vi in.

(23.8x31.8 cm)

Signed right, on bridge: m. hobbema

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.8

PROVENANCE (BOTH)

Anna Maria Ebeling (1767-1812), by
inheritance to her husband; Paul Iwan
Hogguer (1760-1816), 1 Amsterdam (sale,

246

Amsterdam, P. van der Schley, 18 Aug.
1817, lots 23,22, sold for 621 and 834
florins to); J. Hulswit. 2 Sir Charles Bagot
(1781-1843), London (sale, London,
Christie's, 18 June 1836, lots 51,52, sold
for £157.10 to); [Seguier for]; 3 Henry
Petty-Fitzmaurice (1780-1863), 3rd
Marquess of Lansdowne, Bowood
House, Wiltshire, by inheritance to;
Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice (1816-1866),
4th Marquess of Lansdowne, Bowood
House, Wiltshire; by inheritance to;
Henry Charles Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice
(1845-1927), 5th Marquess of Lans¬
downe, Bowood House, Wiltshire, until
at least 1876. 4 [Thos Agnew and Sons,
London, sold to]; [Charles Sedelmeyer,
Paris]. Rodolphe Kann (1845-1905), 5
Paris, by 1883, sold 1907 as part of the
Kann collection to; [Duveen Brothers,
Paris and London]; Walter von Pannwitz
(1856-1920), Berlin and De Hartekamp,
Heemstede, the Netherlands, by
inheritance to his second wife; 6 Catalina
von Pannwitz (1876-1959), De Harte¬
kamp, Heemstede, the Netherlands,
sold separately 1962 to:

Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town
Sidney James van den Bergh (1898-
1977), Wassenaar, sold 1973 through; [G.
Cramer, The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
given 2003 to; LACMA.

Landscape with a Footbridge
[Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York, sold
1962 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS (BOTH)

London 1876, no. 204; 7 Dordrecht 1963,
no. 45, fig. 112 (Landscape with Anglers,
lent by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney J. van den
Bergh); Leiden 1965, no. 25 (Landscape
with Anglers); Los Angeles-Boston-New
York 1981-82, nos. 14A, B, pp. 59-61, ill.;
Los Angeles 1992-93, nos. 14A, B, pp.
59-61, ill.

Additional exhibition for Landscape with
a Footbridge: Rotterdam 1939-40, no. 31,
pi. 26.

REFERENCES (BOTH)

Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), nos. 45,46,
p. 127, vol. 9 (Supplement, 1842), p. 723,
nos. 13,14; Jameson 1844, nos. 71,72, pp.
315-16; Waagen 1854, vol. 3, p. 161, nos. 2,
3; Sedelmeyer 1898, nos. 61,62; Bode
1907, p. 150; Kann 1907, vol. 1, nos. 47,48;
Bode 1909, pp. 173-74; HdG 1908-27,
vol. 4 (1912), no. 176, p. 414, no. 245, p. 432;
Friedlander and Von Falke 1925-26,
vol. 1, p. x, and nos. 62,63; Broulhiet 1938,
nos. 87,200, pp. 145,202, ills.

Additional reference for Landscape with
Anglers and a Distant Town: A. B. de Vries
et al. 1968, p. 70, ill.

NOTES

1 According to the Getty Provenance Index, Sales
Catalogs Database, although sold under Paul
Hogguer’s name, the collection of paintings,
drawings, prints, sculpture, coins, medals, etc.,
was formed by his first wife, Anna Maria Ebeling
(1767-1812), a student of drawing. Paul Hogguer,
whose family was originally from Switzerland,
was a banker and served as the first director of the
Nederlandsche Bank in Amsterdam, 1814-16. He
also held various civic positions, including sheriff
and burgomaster.

2 According to documentation in the Getty
Provenance Index, Sales Catalogs Database.

3 The Getty Provenance Index, Sales Catalogs
Database notes that the buyer of the paintings at
the 1836 sale was either Lord Seguier or Lord
Lansdowne. Smith 1829-42, vol. 9 (Supplement,
1842), says that the buyer was Seguier, who can
probably be identified as William Seguier
(1772-1843), an art dealer and painter. He was the
first superintendent of the British Institution
(1805-43), surveyor of the King’s/Queen’s Pictures,
and first keeper of the National Gallery (1824-43).

4 Jameson 1844, pp. 315-16, nos. 71,72, and Waagen
1854, vol. 3, p. 161, nos. 2,3, note that the paintings
are in the Lansdowne Collection.

5 Between 1880 and his death in 1905, Rodolphe
Kann assembled an important collection, which
he displayed in a gallery that connected his house
in Paris with the adjoining house of his brother,
Maurice Kann. Rodolphe Kann was primarily
interested in collecting paintings by the grand
Dutch masters, Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and
Hobbema. Among the prizes in his collection
were Johannes Vermeer’s Girl Asleep ataTable and
Rembrandt’s Aristotle, both now in the collection
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

See A. Walsh 1996, with additional bibliography.

6 The German aristocrat Walter Sigismund Emil
Adolf von Pannwitz was the private lawyer to
Kaiser Wilhelm II. After World War I, when the
kaiser and his family went into exile in Holland,
Pannwitz and his second wife, Catalina, whom he
had married in 1908, followed. Pannwitz sold his
first collection in Munich in 1905 (Helbing, 24-25
Oct. 1905). Between 1910 and 1920, with the advice
of Wilhelm von Bode and Max J. Friedlander,
Pannwitz assembled a large art collection that

included Italian, French, German, and Dutch
paintings from the fifteenth through the
seventeenth century, as well as bronzes and
ceramics. Following her husband’s death in 1920,
Catalina von Pannwitz settled in the Dutch
country estate De Hartekamp in Heemstede,
where the collection resided until 1940. Born in
Rostock, Germany, in 1876, Catalina Carolina
Friedericke Georgine Roth was from a wealthy
Jewish family with vast landholdings in
Argentina, which granted her Argentinean
citizenship in 1918. In 1940, with the help of F.
Gutmann, she sold five paintings (not including
these two) to Hermann Goring. In return. Goring
arranged for her to receive an exit visa to travel to
Switzerland and protected her large estate and
collection, the latter of which was stored during
the war in a bunker with works from the
Rijksmuseum. Following the war, Catalina von
Pannwitz returned to her estate in the
Netherlands and notified the Netherlands Art
Property Foundation (Stichting Nederlands
Kunstbezit), The Hague, in writing that she had
no interest in the return of the paintings that she
had sold to the Nazis. Friedlander and Von Falke
1925-26, and Venema 1986, pp. 290-91,581.

7 Identified only as Landscape, so it is not known
which of the paintings was exhibited by the
Marquess de Landsdowne, who owned both
pictures.

17 (back to entry)

Jan van Huysum

(1682-1749)

Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn, 1724
Oil on mahogany, 31^ x 23 Vi in.

(80 x59.7 cm)

Signed and dated lower right, on edge
of ledge: Jan Van Huysum/fecit 1724

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.91.164.2

PROVENANCE
Johan Diederik Pompe van
Meerdervoort (1697-1749), 1 Dordrecht
and Huis te Meerdervoort, Zwijndrecht,
or Jan van Huysum, Amsterdam (sale,
Amsterdam, 14 Oct. 1749, lot 8, “Een
extra fraye Bloempot, kragtig en
uitvoerig geschilderd door Jan van
Huysum, in zyn beste tyd, h. 2 v. 8 d.,
br. 2 v. id.,” sold for 1,245 florins). 2 Gerrit
Braamcamp (1699-1771), Amsterdam, by
1766 3 (sale, Amsterdam, Van der Schley,
31 July 1771, lot 90, as “H. 31, b. 23 Vz d.
Pnl. Een fraaye Barnsteenen Vaas,
waarin verschiede Bloemen geplaatst
zyn, dezelve staat op een' Marmeren
Tafel, waarop eenige losse bloemen

247

liggen tegen eenen lichten agtergrond,
welke een Landscap verbeeldt. De
schikking en Groeping der Bloemen is
volgens de Harmonie der koleuren, en
de bevallige losheid van dezelve zeer
natururlyk, en als door een kragtig
Licht bescheenen, verbeeld; alles op \
uitvoerigste behandeld ” sold for 3,800
florins to); 4 Jan Gildemeester Jansz.
(1744-1799), 5 Amsterdam (sale,
Amsterdam, Philippe van der Schley et
ah, 11-12 June 1800, lot 89, sold for 3,000
florins [or 3,010?] to); [G. Spaan]. Pieter
de Smeth (1753-1809), Lord of Alphen
and Rietveld, Amsterdam (sale,
Amsterdam, Philippe van der Schley, 1-2
Aug. 1810, lot 47, sold for 4,500 florins
to); 6 [Jeronimo de Vries (1776-1853),
Amsterdam for]; 7 Lucretia Johanna van
Winter (1785-1845), 8 Amsterdam, after
her marriage in 1822 to Hendrik Six van
Hillegom (1790-1847), Six van
Hillegom-van Winter collection,
Amsterdam, 9 by inheritance 1847 to
their sons; Jan Pieter Six van Hillegom
(1824-1899) and Pieter Hendrik Six van
Vromade (1827-1905), Amsterdam, by
inheritance 1905 to Pieter Hendrik Six
van Vromade’s son; Jonkheer Jan
Willem Six van Vromade, Amsterdam
(1872-1936) (sale, Amsterdam, F. Muller,
and Co., 16 Oct. 1928, supplement J. W.
Six van Vromade, lot 15a, sold for 25,000
florins to); [Gallery A. Staal, Amsterdam,
in 1929]. 10 Arthur Hartog (1891-1985),
Wassenaar, by 1936, 11 confiscated by the
Nazis Dec. 1941, sold 1942 by Dr. M. H.
H. Franssen through Van Marie en
Bignell, The Hague, for 30,000 florins
to; 12 Hans Posse (1879-1942) for the
Fiihrer Museum, Linz; 13 restituted to
the Netherlands Art Property
Foundation (Stichting Nederlands
Kunstbezit, SNK), The Hague, by 1946,
restituted Mar. 1948 to Arthur Hartog,
London, later New York, 14 sold to;
[Gallery S. Nystad, The Hague].
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, sold
1974 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William
Carter, Los Angeles, given 1991 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Amsterdam 1900, no. 48, p. 14; Amster¬
dam 1929, no. 76, ill.; The Hague 1936-
37, no. 104; The Hague 1946, no. 28,
property of Arthur Hartog, New York;
Utrecht 1946, no. 67; Eindhoven 1946,
no. 88; Paintings Looted from Holland
1946-48, no. 22; on deposit from Hartog
to the Mauritshuis, The Hague, 1948; on
loan, The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, Mar.-June 1974; Los Angeles
1975, no. 72, pp. 187-88, ill.; Los
Angeles-New York-Boston 1981-82, no.
15, pp. 62-66, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93,
no. 15, pp. 62-66, ill.

REFERENCES

Hoet 1752 (1976), vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 269,
503; De Bastide 1766, p. 88, as one of six
paintings by Van Huysum in Braam-
camp’s collection, hung in the Salon; 15
Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 19, p.
468, no. 55, p. 476, as collection “de Heer
Six van Hillegom”; HdG 1908-27, vol. 10
(1928), no. 43, p. 346, no. 80, p. 355,
confuses the provenances of two paint¬
ings: HdG no. 43 connects Braamcamp
lot 91 and Gildemeester lot 89, but
Braamcamp lot 91 includes a bird’s nest
absent in the Carter painting. HdG no.
80 correctly identifies the painting as
Braamcamp lot 90 but incorrectly calls
it Gildemeester lot 87; Grant 1954, no. 4,
p. 17, as Arthur Hartog, New York; 16
Bille 1961, vol. 1, pp. 81,226, fig. 90, vol.

2, no. 90, pp. 2i-22a, 100; Paviere
1962-64, vol. 2 (1962), p. 36; De Bruyn
Kops 1965, pp. 98,143; Naumann 1982,
pp. 473,475, fig. 10 (reversed); Grimm
1988, pp. 180-81, figs. 124-25; L. de Vries
1990, cover; Nijstad 1990, pp. 135-36;
Slive 1995, p. 320, fig. 422; Washington
1995 , PP- 144 - 45 , fig-1; Priem 1997,
pp. 134-36,153 and ni32, no. 13, pp. 201-
2, ill., clarifies provenance; Spliethoff
and Hoogsteder 2000, p. 27, ill.; Van der
Willigen and Meijer 2003, p. 116;

B. Schwarz 2004, no. XIX/36; Delft-
Houston 2006-7, no. F15, pp. 193-98
(catalogue only); Taylor 2008, p. 261;
Newmeister 2010, p. 166, fig. 171.

NOTES

1 Johan Diederik Pompe van Meerdervoort and his
wife, Johanna Alida (1691-1749), who was his first
cousin, both died in 1749. Their heirs were their
three daughters, none of whom married. Liedtke
2007, vol. 1, pp. 143-44.

2 The measurements v and d refer to the Dutch voet
(approximately equivalent to a foot) and duitn
(approximately equal to an inch). The sale
catalogue does not distinguish between the two
collections. Both men died in 1749. Los Angeles-
New York-Boston 1981-82, p. 66m, concluded
that the Carter painting probably belonged to Van
Meerdervoort, since it appears at the beginning of
the catalogue. Delft-Houston 2006-7, p- 193 ,
disputes the conclusion, noting that the most
valuable paintings, including the Van Huysums,
were placed at the beginning of the sale.
Unfortunately, there is no extant inventory of the
collection of either man. The abundance of less
valuable paintings by both Jan and Justus van
Huysum, as well as drawings and models of
flowers (lot 125, “Eenige Modellen van
Bloemstukken, 30-0”) in the second half of the
catalogue, suggests that the majority of the
paintings in the first half of the catalogue
belonged to the Van Meerdervoort collection.

3 De Bastide 1766, p. 80. Braamcamp may have
already owned the Carter painting in 1751, when
Johan van Gool 1750-51 (1971) (vol. 2 [1751], p. 19)
noted, “Te Amsterdam by den Heer Braamcamp,
een beroemt liefhebber, zyn vier uitmuntende
stukken, benevens een schoon Lantschap [by Van
Huysum]” (In Amsterdam with Heer Braamcamp,
a famous art lover, are four outstanding pieces
[still lifes], in addition a beautiful landscape).

4 Hoet 1752 (1976), vol. 2, p. 503. Bille 1961, vol. 1,
pp. 81,226, fig. 90, vol. 2, pp. 2i-22a. Vol. 2, no. 90,
p. 100, gives the English translation of the cata¬
logue description: “31 x 23 Vi in. P[anel]. A fine
amber vase containing various flowers, on a marble
table on which some loose flowers; a light land¬
scape forms the background. The arrangement
and grouping of the flowers is in accordance with
the harmony of colours.”

5 For Gildemeester, see De Bruyn Kops 1965.

6 The other names listed as brokers of the sale
included Jan de Bosch, Jan Yver, Cornelis Sebille
Roos, Jan Wytman, Jeronimo de Vries, and
Theodorus Franciscus Spaan. For the De Smeth
van Alphen auction, see Priem 1997, pp. 132-33.
That collection, which contained mostly
paintings by seventeenth-century Dutch masters,
was held in high esteem by contemporaries both
in the Netherlands and abroad. According to the
Baltimore collector Robert Gilmor, Jr. (1774-1848),
who spent time studying in Amsterdam about
1800, De Smeth owned “the choicest collection of
works of Wouwermans, Rubens, Ruysdael, Dow,
Tenier, Berghem, and van de Velde. You can
scarcely name a greater treat to me than such a
sight.” Priem 1997, p. I33n66, quoted from H. N. B.
Clark, “The Impact of Seventeenth-Century
Dutch and Flemish Genre Painting on American
Genre Painting, 1800-1865” (PhD diss.. University
of Delaware, 1982), p. 78.

7 For Jeronimo de Vries and his role as Lucretia’s
adviser and agent, see Priem 1997, pp. i3off., who
suggests the art dealer was probably an old family
friend.

248

8 Priem 1997. Lucretia was the daughter of Pieter
van Winter (1745-1807), whom Priem notes, pp.
103-4, “possessed one of the most important
private collections ever amassed in the
Netherlands. Pieter’s collection was divided
between Lucretia and her younger sister, Anna
Louisa Agatha (1793-1877).” During the fifteen
years between her father’s death and her marriage
in 1822 to Hendrick Six van Hillegom (1790-1847),
Lucretia added fifty-three paintings to her
collection, including the Van Huysum. Regarding
the Six van Hillegom collection, see Van Eijnden
and Van der Willigen 1816-40, vol. 3 (1820), p. 304.

9 Listed as in the Hendrik Six van Hillegom
collection by Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 55,
p. 476, although the painting had been acquired
by Lucretia herself.

10 Listed as the lender in Amsterdam 1929, no. 76, ill.

11 Listed as the lender to the exhibition in The
Hague 1936-37, no. 104. Annotation in an
unidentified hand (J. G. van Gelder?) in a copy of
the catalogue at the Getty Research Institute
notes that Hartog had left the country, but it is
unclear at what date. See cat. no. 17018.

12 Maximiliaan Henricus Hubertius Franssen was a
Dutch lawyer who was appointed by the Nazis in
1941 to supervise properties seized in the
Netherlands from those designated as enemies
of the Nazis. The valuation of the paintings was
made by J. W. Boer on 9 December 1941.

13 According to Grant 1954, no. 4, p. 17, before
Hartog the painting had come “from Art Dealer
Esther [Esher] Surrey of the Hague, bought by Dr.
Gopel.” Dr. Erhard Goepel was the official agent
and buyer for Linz in Holland under Posse and
Voss. According to the official files of the
Netherlands Art Property Foundation (Stichting
Nederlands Kunstbezit, SNK), The Hague, inv.
no. 148, Hans Posse was responsible for the
acquisition of the painting for Linz in 1941. Prof.
Dr. Posse, formerly the director of the
Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, was
appointed by Hitler the director of the Special
Commission for Linz in 1939. From 1939 to 1942
he was the most important official purchaser of
works of art for the Nazis.

14 See cat. no. I7ni8.

15 De Bastide 1766, p. 88: “six Tableaux de suite
faisant ensemble un incomparable tresor. Ce sont
des Fleurs & des Fruits; chaque tableau est un
chef-d’oeuvre. L’un, de Fleurs, peint sur toile,
porte 54 pouces de hauteur, sur 43 de largeur.
Trois, de Fleurs & de Fruits, sur bois, portent
chacun 31 pouces de hauteur sur 24 de largeur; &
les deux derniers, egalement en Fruits & en
Fleurs, & peints sur bois, portent chacun 15
pouces de hauteur, sur 13 de largeur.”

16 See n. 13 above. Grant 1954, p. i7n4, following
HdG 1908-27, confuses the provenance and
identifies the Carter painting as Braamcamp lot
91 rather than lot 90 but identifies it correctly as
Gildemeester lot 89.

(back to entry)

Willem Kalf

(1619-1693)

Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, Silver-
gilt Ewer, and Glasses , ca. 1643
Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in.
(55.6x44.1 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.22

PROVENANCE

J. Braz, 1 Leningrad and Paris (estate sale,
Paris, Charpentier [Alphonse Bellier],

12 May 1938, lot 13, pi. V). [art market,
Amsterdam]. F. G. J. Beerkens, 2 Haarlem,
by 1939, sold 1983 to; [Hoogsteder-
Naumann, Ltd., New York, sold 1983 to];
Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,

Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITION

Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 31, pp. 124-27,
ill.

REFERENCES

Spriggs 1967, p. 83; Grisebach 1974, no.

65, pp. 237-38, fig. 69; Delft-Cambridge-

Fort Worth 1988, pp. 184-85, fig. 10.1;

Sutton 1992, p. 103, fig. 1; Rotterdam-

Aachen 2006-7, pp- 70,73,74,76m, 80.

NOTES

1 Probably the artist Osip Braz, aka Josif (1873-1936),
who painted in Germany and France and was
elected member of the Counsel of the Hermitage
Museum, Saint Petersburg, where he became
conservator of the Dutch collection of the
museum.

2 F. G. J. Beerkens was the director of a business that
specialized in fine woods: oak, mahogany, teak,
etc. The company operated in Haarlem from 1919
to 1969.

19 (back to entry)

Philips Koninck

(1619-1688)

Panoramic Landscape with a Village ,

ca. 1648-49

Oil on wood, 11 14 x 14% in.
(28.6x36.5 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.9

PROVENANCE

Thomas Sivright (1745-1835), 1 Megget-
land and Southouse, Edinburgh (estate
sale, Edinburgh, Tait, 18 Feb. 1836, lot

2921, as Rembrandt, sold for £18.18 to);
James Maitland Hog (1799-1858),
Newliston (near Edinburgh), 2 Scotland,
by inheritance to his son; 3 Thomas
Alexander Hog (1835-1908), Newliston,
Scotland, by inheritance to his son;
Steuwart Bayley Hog (1876-1944), Bart,
of Newliston, Scotland (sale, London,
Sotheby’s, 16 May 1928, lot 10, as Philips
Koninck, sold for £4 20 to); [Asscher and
Welker, London]. [P. de Boer, Amster¬
dam]. Dr. Erich Liibbert (1883-1963),
Schloss Sommerswalde, Schwante bei
Berlin, 1936 until 1945, then South-West
Africa, 4 by descent to; Liibbert family,
South Africa, sold 1978 to/through;
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, to];

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,

Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 16, pp. 67-69, ill.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 16, pp. 67-69, ill.

REFERENCES

Borenius 1928, p. 268; Gerson 1936
(1980), p. 103, no. 9; Sumowski 1983,
vol. 3, no. 1045, pp. 1532,1545, ill-;
Amsterdam-Boston-Philadelphia
1987-88, p. 368; Gaskell 1990, p. 3691113;
Liedtke 2007, vol. 1, pp. 406-7.

NOTES

1 Thomas Sivright was a founding director of the
Royal Institution. His extensive and eclectic
personal collection was sold following his death.
Edinburgh 1992, p. 170.

2 Newliston was purchased in 1747 from John
Dalrymple, 2nd Earl Stair, by Roger Hog, a
London merchant whose son commissioned
Robert Adam to design the present house, which
remains in the family’s possession.

3 According to a large handwritten paper label
attached to the reverse of the painting: “Newhit...
July 26 /1858. This Picture of Rembrandt was
purchased by me at the sale of pictures belonging
to the late Mr. Sievewright of Miggetland
[Meggetland near Edinburgh]. Mr. David Loring
shewed me Rembrandt’s markR in the right-hand
corner below [no longer visible]. JMH 27 Vi x

35 Vi.” “JMH” was probably James Maitland Hog
(1799-1858) of Newliston, whose grandson sold
the painting in 1928.

4 The German jurist and wealthy industrialist Dr.
Erich Liibbert bought Schloss Sommerswalde in
1922 after having lived for twelve years in
South-West Africa (former German colony, now

249

Namibia). In Africa Lubbert founded Consolidated
Mines, which he later amalgamated with Dr. Beers
as De Beers Consolidated Mines. He was also the
sole owner of Dyckshoff and Widmann, a multi¬
national corporation based in Germany that
constructed roads and railroads. A pro-fascist,
Lubbert and his family fled the Soviet Army on 23
April 1945 and went to South-West Africa (then
under South African rule), where he died in 1963.
Baird 1987 and de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ErichLiibbert,
accessed 5 Jan. 2015.

20 (back to entry)

Aert van der Neer

(1603/4-1677)

Frozen River with a Footbridge,
ca. 1645-55

Oil on wood, 15 x 19% in.

(38.1x49.2 cm)

Signed lower right: AVDN

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

M.2003.108.1

PROVENANCE

Sir Montague John Cholmeley (1802-
1874), 2nd Bart., Easton, Co. Lincoln. 1
Probably "A Gentleman” (sale, London,
Christie’s, 17 Dec. 1915, lot 117, as " A Frozen
River Scene, with Figures: Moonlight, on
panel, 14 Vz in. by 19 in.,” sold for £37.16
to); 2 Lindlar. 3 "Different Properties”
(sale, London, Christie’s, 30 Nov. 1917,
lot 42, as "A Frozen River Scene, with
Buildings and Figures, on panel—14 Vz in.
by 19 in.,” sold for £25.4 to); [Van der
Kar, London]. "Property of a Lady” (sale,
London, Christie’s, 29 Mar. 1974, no. 67,
ill., sold for £7,500 to); [Smith]. [David
Koetser, Zurich, sold 1976 to]; Mr. and
Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los
Angeles, given 2003 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

On loan. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, Dec. 1975-Mar. 1976;

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 17, pp. 70-72, ill. of infrared detail;
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 17, pp. 70-72,
ill., p. 71, fig. 1, infrared detail.

REFERENCES

Connoisseur 1974; Schulz 2002, no. 35,
p. 136, pi. 4, ill. 15; "The Gift of Mr. and
Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21; Liedtke 2007,
vol. 1, p. 511.

NOTES

1 Label attached to the back of the panel is printed
with Cholmeley’s coat of arms and “Sir Montague
John Cholmeley, Bart.”

2 Possibly sold from the estate of Captain Sir
Montague Aubrey Rowley Cholmeley (1876-1914),
4th Bart., Easton, grandson of Sir Montague John
Cholmeley. The younger Sir Montague was killed
in action 24 December 1914. Although the
dimensions agree with the Carter painting, the
description of the painting as “moonlight” does
not. The discrepancy may, however, be attributed
to dirty varnish that could have made the
painting appear to represent evening or night.

3 Possibly Max Lindlar, who in 1926 was noted as
having been head of the Bechstein Piano
Company, 40 Wigmore Street, London, for forty
years. Grew 1926, p. 54.

21 (back to entry)

Clara Peeters

(act. 1607-21)

Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke,
and Cherries, ca. 1615
Oil on wood, 13 % x 18% in.
(33.3x46.7 cm)

Signed lower left, on edge of table:
CLARA. P.

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.8

PROVENANCE

Johanna Suzanne Goekoop-de Jongh
(1877-1946), Breda, in 1938. Edmond
Hertzberger (1904-1993), 1 Lugano, sold
1982 through; [S. Nystad Oude Kunst
B.V., The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, given 2003 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Rotterdam 1938, no. 18, fig. 50; Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82
(Boston and New York only), addendum,
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 32, pp.
128-31, ill.

REFERENCES

Vroom 1945, no. 244, pp. 114-15,215;

Paris 1952, p. 35; Greindl 1956, pp. 35,

178, as formerly Goekoop-de Jongh;
Vroom 1980-99, vol. 1 (1980), no. 494,
p. 99; Vroom 1980-99, vol. 3 (1999), p. 157 ,
ill. 118; Greindl 1983, no. 9, p. 371, as
formerly Goekoop-de Jongh; Decoteau
1992, pp. 34-36,181, ill. 22, pi. IX, p. 127,
confuses references with another
painting; Amsterdam-Cleveland
1999-2000, p. i3on9; "The Gift of Mr.
and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21, fig. 3;

Antwerp-Madrid 2016-17, pp. 18,19,37,

50, 53 ,61,72, 99 ,113, H9nn6,13, fig. 5;

The Hague 2017, pp. 173-74, fig- 19a.

NOTE

1 Edmond Hertzberger was a wealthy Dutch
industrialist (ready-made clothing) and collector.
A Jew, he fled the Netherlands after his factory was
seized by the Nazis in 1940. Eventually making
his way to England, he joined the Dutch army in
exile. He returned to the Netherlands after the
war and rebuilt his factory. He lived in New York
and the Netherlands, retiring to Switzerland,
where he died in 1993. A race car driver before his
marriage, he was the only Dutchman to win a
Grand Prix race. I am grateful to Egbert
Haverkamp-Begemann and Dr. Don Hertzberger
for their help in identifying Edmond Hertzberger.

22 (back to entry)

Jan Porcellis

(1580/84-1632)

Vessels in a Moderate Breeze, ca. 1629

Oil on wood, 16 14 x 24 14 in.

(41.3 x 61.6 cm)

Signed lower right, on plank: IP

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter Collection

M.2009.106.10

PROVENANCE

[Nystad, The Hague, sold to]; Mrs. N.
Crommelin-Waller, 1 Laren and The
Hague; [Nystad, The Hague, sold 1977
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

On loan, The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, Apr.-July 1977; Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no.
18, pp. 73-75, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93,
no. 18, pp. 73 - 75 , HI-; Madrid 1994 ~ 95 ,
no. 45, pp. 170-71, ill.; Amsterdam 2000,
no. 84, pp- 134 - 35 , ill.

REFERENCES

J. Walsh 1971, no. A45, pp. 111-12,236-37;
Bol 1973, pp. 98,102, fig. 98; J. Walsh
1974, pp. 738,741, fig- 30; DaCosta
Kaufmann et al. 2002, fig. 195; Sluijter
2013, pp. 348 , 350 , fig. 3.

NOTE

1 Although the initial does not agree, she was
probably Petronella Johanna Waller (1892-1978),
who married Herman Arnoldus Crommelin
(1885-1962) in Amsterdam in 1912. He died in
Laren, and she died in The Hague.

250

23 (back to entry)

Frans Post

(1612-1680)

Brazilian Landscape with Plantation
House , 1655

Oil on wood, 18% x 24% in.

(46.7 x 62.9 cm)

Signed and dated lower center, on rock:
F. Post /165/5]; inscribed in dark paint on
left center tree above the roof: D

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.3

PROVENANCE

Heinrich Theodor Hoch (1845-1905), 1
Munich (sale, Munich, J. M. Heberle,

19 Sept. 1892, lot 167). Adolph Bayers-
dorfer (1842-1901), Munich. 2 German-
isches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg,
in 1909, by exchange 3 Oct. 1947 to; 3
Valentin J. Mayring (1905-2000), 4
Hollfeld, bei Bayreuth. Private collection,
Switzerland; [David Koetser, Zurich,
sold 1977 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, given 2003 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

On loan. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, June-Sept. 1977; The
Hague 1979-80, no. 107, p. 113, ill.; Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no.
19, pp. 76-79, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93,
no. 19, pp. 76-79, ill.

REFERENCES

Von Reber and Bayersdorfer 1889-1900,
vol. 9 (1897), no. 1050, ill.; Von Frimmel
1904-12, vol. 3 (1907), pp-124-25;
Niirnberg 1909, no. 396, p. 120; Von
Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), p. 347;
Souto Maior 1919, p. 117; Molengraaff-
Gerlings ca. 1928, ill. [n.p.] as in Niirn-
berg Museum; Martin 1935-36, vol. 2
(1936), p. 467, fig. 246; Sousa-Leao 1937,
p. 30, ill.; R. Smith 1938, no. 14, pp. 258-
59,262,267, fig. 18, as House by the Shore;
Rio de Janeiro 1942, p. 15; Sousa-Leao
1948, no. 18, p. 29, ill., p. 99, ill., as
“Mucambo,” Germanisches Museum,
Niirnberg; Weltkunst 1950, no. 10, p. 6,
ill.; Guimaraes 1957, nos. 82,83, pp. 109-
11,180; Plietzsch i960, pp. 116-17, fig. 192;
Larsen 1962, no. 28, pp. 102-3,142,163,
189, fig. 43; Sousa-Leao 1973, no. 22,

p. 73, ill. and cover; Larsen 1982, p. 340;
Whitehead and Boeseman 1989, pp. 187-
88; Dantas Silva 2000, p. 64; “The Gift
of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003, p. 21, fig. 2;
Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al.
2007, no. 26, pp. 158-59, ill. with detail.

NOTES

1 Heinrich Theodor Hoch was a wealthy real estate
developer. His father, Theodor, was an economist.
Bellinger and Regler-Bellinger 2012, pp. 368ff.

2 The art historian Adolph Bayersdorfer was a
curator at the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, and the
founder of the Deutsches Institut Florenz.

3 Niirnberg 1909, no. 396 (340), p. 120, as
Germanisches Museum 334, gallery 89. A
document dated 10 August 1950, signed by Dr.
Peter Strieder, Haupt Conservator, Germanisches
National-Museum, Niirnberg, states, “Laut
Tauschvertrag von 3 Oktober 1947 in das
Eigentum des Herrn Valentin Mayring, Hollfeld
bei Bayreuth, iibergegangen ist.” The painting
was apparently traded for Portrait of a Bridegroom,
Half Length, Standing in a Landscape, by Anton
Heusler (act. Annaberg, Saxony, 1525-1561)

(inv. no. GM 1462).

4 Valentin J. Arnold Mayring (1905-2000), Munich,
was trained as an apothecary. An estate sale of his
property took place in Munich at Neumeister,
Miinchner Kunstauktionshaus, 21 Mar. 2001.
Mayring may have purchased the painting by
Heusler from the sale by Paul Graupe, Berlin,
17-18 June 1936, lot 52, as by Monogrammist A.G.
The painting had belonged to the Jewish firm A. S.
Drey before it was included in the forced sale at
Graupe. It was restituted to the successors of A. S.
Drey in 2007 and sold by them through Sotheby’s,
London, 6 Dec. 2007, lot 137.

24 (back to entry)

Adam Pynacker (Pijnacker)

(1620/22-1673)

View of a Harbor in Schiedam , ca. 1650
Oil on canvas, 21% x 17% in.

(55.2x45.4 cm)

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.11

PROVENANCE

Private collection, France, sold by 1972
to; 1 [Frederick Mont, New York, sold
1974 through]; 2 [Newhouse Galleries,
New York, to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009
to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 20, pp. 80-83, ill-; Montreal 1990,
no. 44, pp. 148-49, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-
93, no. 20, pp. 80-83, ill-;

Williamstown-Sarasota 1994-95, no- 4 ,
pp. 11,44-45, ill.; New York-London
2001, no. 57, pp. 89,112,123ml, 258,290,
298,305,330,340-42,423, ill- P- 34 i;
The Hague-Washington 2008-9
(Washington only), no. 34, pp. 154-55,
232, ill.

REFERENCES

J. Walsh 1981, pp. 386ff., pi. 11; Harwood
1983, p. H5n20, ill. p. 81; Harwood 1988,
no. 30, pp. 24,26,59-60, ill. 30, pi. VII;
London 1991, p. x, fig. 5; Liedtke 2000,
pp. 14,15,220, fig. 7; Schiedam 1997.

NOTES

1 When acquired, the painting had a brass
nameplate that included the number 21. The
collection has not been identified.

2 In a letter to Wolfgang Stechow, 16 January 1973
(Pynacker object file. Department of European
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA), Betty Mont
informed him that Mr. Carter had bought the
painting by Pynacker without hesitating a
minute, and that the old Mr. Newhouse had sold
him the painting. She concluded saying she was
pleased that Carter, who is a serious collector,
purchased it, but is sorry that Sherman Lee
(director of the Cleveland Museum of Art for
whom presumably Stechow was inquiring) was
too late. The painting had been reserved for Mr.
Carter for a long time. The receipt for the final
payment of the painting is dated 17 January 1974.
Mont often worked in partnership with
Newhouse.

25 (back to entry)

Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael

(1628/29-I682)

Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem

(1621/22-1683)

The Great Oak , 1652

Oil on canvas, 33 14 x 41 14 in.

(84.5 x 104.8 cm)

Signed and dated lower right: JVRuisdael
1652

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
in honor of the museum’s 25th anniversary
M.91.164.1

PROVENANCE

Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (1690-
1756), Rome, by 1749 1 (sale, Amsterdam,
De Leth and De Winter, 18 May 1763, lot
39, as “Een ditto [kapitaal en overheerlyk]

251

fray Stuk, verbeeldende een Landschap
of Bosch-Gezigt: naar ’t midden op de
voorgrond een Man te Paard, die van de
jagt schynt te komen, en een ander te
voet die met hem spreekt; verder op een
Man die zit te rusten, en een loopende
Hond: ter regter zyde een Harder en
Harderin met drie Schaapjes; voorts in
alien deelen zeer fix en meesteragtig
geteekent en geschildert, door denzel-
ven [Nicolaas van Berchem], en mede
van zyn allerbeste tydt; hoog 30, breet
41 duimen. 1000-0. Deeze tweeStukken
zyn op doekgeschilderten welgeconditioneert:
dog het laatste is zeer wel op panel geplakt
[canvas attached to panel]/’ sold for

I, 000 florins). 2 [Pieter Fouquet (1729-
1800), Amsterdam]. 3 [Pierre Grand-Pre, 4
Paris (sale, Paris, Jacques Langlier and
Alexandre Paillet, 16-24 Feb. 1809,

lot 98, sold for 7,001 francs to)]; [Pierre-
Joseph LaFontaine (1758-1835)]. 5
Charles-Ferdinand (1778-1820), due de
Berri (private contract sale, London,
Christie’s, Apr. 1834, lot 37, as A View on
the Borders of a Vast Forest of Ancient Oak,

J. Ruysdael with figures by Berghem,
bought in for £480); Marie-Caroline
(1798-1870), duchesse de Berri (sale,
Paris, Paillet, 4-6 Apr. 1837, lot 26, as
“Ruysdael et Berchem, Le Grand Chene,”
sold for 8,000 francs). Samuel Wheeler
(d. 1871), Brighton and Barrow Hills,
Surrey, by 1856 (sale, London, Christie’s,
29 July 1871, lot 105, figures and animals
“admirably introduced by N. Berchem,”
as signed by both artists, and dated 1652,
sold for £702.155. to); [King]. George
Cavendish-Bentinck (1821-1891),

London, by 1876 (sale, London, Christie’s,
8-14 July 1891, lot 566, sold for £1,470
to); [P. & D. Colnaghi, London]. Arthur
Sanderson (1846-1915), 6 Edinburgh, in
1893. [P* & D- Colnaghi, London, sold
1897 to]; Friedrich Christian Karl
Fleischmann (d. 1907), Liverpool and
London, by inheritance to his widow;
Eliza Fleischmann, nee Ashcroft

(d. 1924), London, by inheritance to her
son; Frederick Noel Ashcroft [Fleisch¬
mann] (1878-1949)/ London, by
inheritance to his widow; Constance
Muriel Im Thurn Ashcroft (b. 1880) and
heirs, sold through; 8 [Harari & Johns,
Ltd., London, in 1985 to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
given 1991 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

London 1856, no. 22, Landscape and
Figures; Ruysdael and Berghem, lent by
Samuel Wheeler; London 1867, no. 54, as
Landscape and Figures, Ruysdael and Berghem,
lent by Samuel Wheeler; London 1876,
no. 67, lent by G. Cavendish-Bentinck;
London 1890, no. 73, Jacob van Ruysdael
and Nicolas Berghem, signed “J. V.
Ruisdael 1652,” lent by G. Cavendish-
Bentinck; London 1903, no. 4, as The
Outskirts of a Forest, figures by Berghem,
Smith 103; 9 London 1911, no. 69, as
signed “J. v. Ruisdael, 1652,” lent by Mrs.
Fleischmann; London 1915, no. 26, as
“dated 1662, and signed by both Artists”;
London 1948-49, no. 142, lent by Noel
Ashcroft; long-term loan to the City
Museums and Art Gallery, Birmingham,
England, Aug. 1947-83, lent by Noel
Ashcroft; 10 The Hague-Cambridge
1981-82, no. 16, pp. 58-59, ill. and detail;
Los Angeles 1990-91, n.p.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 33, pp. 132-37, ill.; Los
Angeles 2000; Los Angeles-Philadelphia-
London 2005-6, no. 20, pp. 78-81,
ill. and detail.

REFERENCES

Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 103, pp.
34 and 510, as Cavalier on a Gray Horse; and
a Soldier on Foot, signed by both Ruisdael
and Berchem, and vol. 9 (Supplement,
1842), no. 54, p. 699, updates provenance;
Blanc 1857-58, vol. 2 (1858), pp. 423-24;
Hofstede de Groot 1893, pp. 211-12,
ill. of signature, as in the collection of
Arthur Sanderson; HdG 1908-27, vol. 4
(1912), no. 550, pp. 174-75 (only the
English translation of HdG notes the
work is signed by both Ruisdael and
Berchem); J. Rosenberg 1928, no. 339,
p. 93, as signed by both Ruisdael and
Berchem; Schaar 1958, p. 36, as staffage
by Berchem; Ashton, Davies, and Slive
1982, pi. 6 (detail); Amsterdam-Boston-
Philadelphia 1987-88, p. 444, fig. 1; Slive
1987, pp. i69ff., ill.; Montreal 1990, p. 15,
fig. 1; Sutton 1990-91, p. 109, fig. 5;
Walford 1991, pp. 80-81, fig. 70, as
Wooded Country Road; Blankert,
Barnouw-de Ranitz, and Stal 1991, pp.
28-29, fig. 11; Slive 1995, p. 225, ill.; Slive
2001a, no. 380, pp. 115,249,250,291-93,
ill.; “The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter”
2003, p. 21; [Marandel] 2005; Fiji 2006-7,
pp. 87-88; Muchnic 2015, p. 125, ill.;

A. Walsh (forthcoming).

NOTES

1 The posthumous manuscript inventory of
Gonzaga’s painting collection includes 832 works,
of which approximately 300 were sent to
Amsterdam, where they were sold at two auctions.
Slive 1987, p. i72nio. According to Slive 2001a,

p. 293m, the inventory, datable to 1756-63, lists
the painting as no. 154: “Quadro di palmi 4, once
9 per larghezza, e palmi 3, once 3 per altezza,
rappresentante un paese, con figure, in tavola, di
Berclem [sic]” The catalogue, “Catalogo dei quadri
tuttavia essistenti nella galleria della Ch. Mem.
Dell’ Emo Sig. Cardinale Silvio Valenti,” is in the
Biblioteca Communale, Mantua, Misc. 109. 1 ;
a typescript of the catalogue is at the Wadsworth
Atheneum and Museum of Art, Hartford, CT. The
complete inventory is published in Pietrangeli
1961, pp. 43-71-

2 The sale catalogue is reproduced in Terwesten
1770 (1976), pp. 289-309. The sale price and name
of the buyer appear in an annotated copy of the
sale catalogue at the RKD-Nederlands Instituut
voor Kunstgeschiedinis, The Hague.

3 Fouquet was one of the major buyers at the sale.
Los Angeles 1992-93, p. 132, identifies the
painting as lot 67 in Fouquet’s sale through
Langford, London, 10-11 Feb. 1773, where it is
described as “Berchem, 67 A Landscape and cattle;
a summer scene, touched with spirit, well
composed, and very clear.” The dimensions are
noted as 2 ft. 8 in. by 3 ft. 4 in. (32 x 40 in.), almost
two inches smaller in height and width than The
Great Oak, which measures 33% by 41% in.
Although the current stretcher is about Va inch
larger than the painting on each side, there is
scalloping on the sides and the tacking edges have
been removed, indicating that the painting was
probably originally the current size (see Technical
Report). The Great Oak also does not include cattle,
suggesting that lot 67 refers to another painting.
Although the 1773 sale refers to Fouquet as “that
celebrated collector de Heer Fouquet,” he was
actually a major dealer.

4 According to the introduction to the catalogue,
Pierre Grand-Pre was one of the wealthiest
merchants of paintings in Paris, especially of
Netherlandish paintings. Peronnet and
Fredericksen 1998, vol. 1, p. 55.

5 Pierre-Joseph Lafontaine was a painter active in
Cortrai and Paris. Following the French
Revolution, he became an art dealer, buying at
auction throughout Europe for French museums.

6 Arthur Sanderson was a wine merchant and
whisky distiller, who built Learmonth Terrace
House in Edinburgh in 1891 to house his
collection of old master paintings, antiques,
porcelain, and sculpture. Financial difficulties led
him to sell his collection in a series of sales
between 1908 and 1913. Edinburgh 1992, p. 170.

7 The Fleischmann sons changed the family name
from Fleischmann to Ashcroft during World War I.

8 I am grateful to James Mitchell of John Mitchell
Fine Paintings, London, for clarifying the
provenance. According to him, the painting was
sold through Harari & Johns by the Ashcroft heirs
on whose behalf his father, Peter Mitchell, was
working. James Mitchell’s grandfather, John

252

Mitchell, knew the Ashcroft sisters well and sold
a number of paintings for them in the 1960s. The
firm continues to be involved in the dispersal of
the collection.

9 No dimensions are cited. An annotated copy of
the catalogue at the RKD also notes that it is
dated 1652.

10 I am grateful to Elizabeth Donaghue, volunteer
research assistant. Curatorial Services Depart¬
ment at the Birmingham Museums and Art
Gallery, for confirming that Noel Ashcroft was
the anonymous lender to the museum and the
dates of the loan. The loan apparently continued
under the Ashcroft heirs and was still officially
on long-term loan to Birmingham when it was
lent to The Hague-Cambridge 1981-82. A similar
situation is reported in the online catalogue of
the Art Institute of Chicago: in 1950 Ashcroft’s
widow (Charlotte Im Thurn Ashcroft [b. 1880; m.
1904]) lent Aelbert Cuyp’s painting A View of
Vianen with a Herdsman and Cattle by a River, inv. no.
2003.169, to Birmingham, where it was later on
long-term loan.

Jacob Isaacksz. van
Ruisdael

(1628/29-1682)

View of Grainfields with a Distant Town ,
ca. 1670

Oil on canvas, 20 k 4 x 25 Vz in.

(51.4x64.8 cm)

Signed lower left: JVRuisdael

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M. 2009.106.12

PROVENANCE

Friedrich Moritz (1742-1814), Freiherr,
after 1803 Graf von Brabeck, Soder, near
Hildesheim, by 1792, 1 by inheritance
through his daughter; Philippine
(1796-1821), Grafin von Brabeck, to her
husband (m. 1817); Andreas Stolberg
(1786-1863), Freiherr von Soder (sale,
Hannover, Rumpler, 31 Oct. 1859, lot
230). Freiherr von Savigny, 2 Berlin. [P.
Cassirer, Berlin, sold 1918 to]; Private
collection, Sweden. Private collection,
Norway. [Frederick Mont, New York,
1970, sold to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009
to; LACMA.

REFERENCES

Ramdohr 1792, no. 264; HdG 1908-27,
vol. 4 (1912), no. 139a, p. 49; Sutton 1992,
p. 170; Slive 2001a, no. 97, pp. 121-22, ill.;
Kern 2011, p. 217, fig. 11.

NOTES

1 For Brabeck (also Brabek), see Ramdohr 1792,
Kracht 1978, and Wittstock 2008.

2 Probably the jurist Friedrich Karl Savigny
(1779-1861), who left teaching in 1842, when he
was named Grosskanzler of Prussia.

27 (back to entry)

Salomon van Ruysdael

(l600/l603-l670)

River Landscape with a Ferry , 1650
Oil on wood, 20^ x 32% in.

(52.1 x 83.5 cm)

Signed and dated lower left, on ferry:
S-VRUYSDAEL-1650

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.13

PROVENANCE

Mrs. M. F. Brandt (estate sale, London,
Sotheby’s, 16 Nov. 1955, lot 41, sold for
£10,800 to); [Leonard Koetser Gallery,
London, still in 1965]; A. E. Allnatt (sale,
London, Sotheby’s, 6 Dec. 1972, lot 32,
sold for £89,000 to); [Edward Speelman,
Ltd., London, sold 1973 to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

On loan, The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, 1973; Los Angeles-
Boston-New York 1981-82, no. 22, pp.
88-91, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 22,
pp. 88-91, ill.

REFERENCES

Connoisseur 1956; London 1965, no. 6;
Stechow 1975, no. 363A, p. 135? fig- 36;
Rickey 1981, p. 26, ill.; Amsterdam-
Boston-Philadelphia 1987-88, p. 473;
Sutton 1992, pp. 182, i83n4; DaCosta
Kaufmann et al. 2002, pi. 191.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 21, pp. 84-87, ill.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 21, pp. 84-87, ill.; Los
Angeles-Philadelphia-London 2005-6
(Los Angeles only), no. 44, pp. 134-35, ill.

ZS (back to entry)

Salomon van Ruysdael

(l600/l603-l670)

View of the River Lek and Vianen , 1668
Oil on canvas, 22 V2 x 35% in.

(57.2 x 91.1 cm)

Signed and dated lower right:
SVRuysdael 1668

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.21

PROVENANCE

Sir William Drake (1817-1890), Weybridge,
Surrey, by inheritance to his niece and
adopted daughter; Ella Katharine (Mrs.
Alfred) Hornsby-Drake (1846-1930),
London (estate sale, London, Christie’s,

11 Mar. 1932, lot 88, ill., sold for £630 to);
[Gooden & Fox, London, still in 1954].

[A. Brod, London, in 1955]. 1 J. Lowenstein,
London. 2 [Noortman & Brod, Maastricht,
sold 1983 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009
to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

London 1955, no. 25, pi. VIII, as The Mouth
of a River; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 34,
pp. 138-39, ill.

REFERENCES

Stechow 1938, no. 472; Stechow 1975,
no. 473A, p. 142; Koenhein 2001, p. 60,
% 5 -

NOTES

1 Possibly owned in shares with Gooden & Fox.

2 Owner of painting cited by Stechow 1975,
no. 473 A, p. 142.

29 (back to entry)

Pieter Jansz. Saenredam

(1597-1665)

Interior of the Sint-Mariaherh, Utrecht,
1651

Oil on wood, 19 ks x 14 ks in.

(48.6 x 35.9 cm)

Signed and dated lower right, on the
plinth: R r Saenredam fecit AN 1651

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter
M.2003.108.2

PROVENANCE

Mr. Alcott, Rugby. William Allan Coats
(1853-1926), Glasgow, sold by heirs
through; 1 [W. B. Paterson, London, 3 Jan.

253

1927, lot 175, for £5,000 to]; 2 [Frits Lugt
(1884-1970), Maartensdijk, inv. no. 2766,
sold Feb. 1927 to]; 3 Willy van der
Mandele (1883-1951), by inheritance to
his wife; Alida Christina Rabina van der
Mandele-Vermeer (1891-1988), Bloemen-
dael John Hampden Mercer-Henderson
(1906-1963), 8th Earl of Buckingham¬
shire, 1963 to; Trustees of the Hampden
Settlement (sale, Amsterdam, Sotheby
Mak van Waay, 15 Nov. 1976, lot 46, ill.,
sold to); [Brod Gallery, London, sold
1977 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

London 1927, no. 175; Amsterdam 1938
(not in cat.); 4 Los Angeles-Boston-New
York 1981-82, no. 23, pp. 92-97, ill.;
Rotterdam 1991, no. 17, pp. 116-19, ill.;
Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 23, pp. 92-97,
ill.; Utrecht 2000-2001, no. 31, pp. 176,
178-79, ill.; Los Angeles 2002, no. 31,
pp. 176,178-79, ill.; Madrid 2008-9, no. 6,
p. 68, pp. 35-38, ill. (Eng. ed., pp. 87-88).

REFERENCES

Utrecht 1961, no. 152a, p. 216, fig. 153a
(not in Utrecht; only in English ed.);
Liedtke 1971, p. 1391153; Liedtke 1975-76,
p. i64n62, fig. 12; Guillaumin 1977,
p. 140, fig. 2; J. Walsh 1981, p. 388, fig. 12;
Ruurs 1987, p. ioon58; Schwartz and
Bok 1989, no. 152, p. 280 and pp. 134,149,
228,232,279,299,332n25, pi. 217; Tauch
1991, p. 3275, ill.; Edinburgh 1992, pp.
144,175; "The Gift of Mr. and Mrs.
Carter” 2003, p. 21, fig. 4.

NOTES

1 The Carter painting was not included in the
catalogue of Coats’s collection prepared by
William Paterson in 1904. Edinburgh 1992, p. 144,
however, notes that a manuscript inventory in the
possession of the Coats family lists four paintings
by Saenredam, which were dispersed after
William Coats’s death. The four paintings by
Saenredam were Interior of Haarlem Cathedral,
which hung in the hall of the family estate at
Dalskairth in Dumfries; two Church Interiors in the
dining room; and another church interior in the
billiard room.

2 Mentioned in Los Angeles-Boston-New York
1981-82, p. 92, as a sale. The painting was actually
included in the exhibition The Entire Collection of
the Late W.A. Coats, Esqre. at the Galleries of the
Royal Society of British Artists, London, held in
January 1927. Various articles in the press noted

that the exhibition was “previous to the projected
sale of the collection.” The exhibition was
apparently organized by William B. Paterson,
who wrote the catalogue. Articles in the London
press note that Coats was a cotton magnate,
who over the course of forty years had formed
a collection of 341 works of all schools and periods,
from Italian primitives to living British artists.
This was the first exhibition of the entire collec¬
tion, from which he had rarely lent paintings.

The most important painting in the collection
was Johannes Vermeer’s Christ in the House of Martha
and Mary, which was presented to the National
Gallery of Scotland by Coats’s sons. The reference
to the 1904 catalogue of the exhibition originally
came from Frits Lugt’s notes (Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82, p. 97). Utrecht 2000-2001,
p. 178m, cites a handwritten note in a copy of the
catalogue of Coats’s collection at the RKD-
Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedinis,

The Hague, stating that no. 175 is a painting of
the Sint-Mariakerk from 1651.

3 According to a letter in the Saenredam object file.
Department of European Painting and Sculpture,
LACMA, dated 26 February 1979, from Carlos van
Hasselt, director, Fondation Custodia, Paris, to
Edward Carter, Lugt was largely responsible for
the formation of the Willy van der Mandele
collection. Willy van der Mandele was born in
Haarlem but died in Mozac, Auvergne, France.

4 According to Utrecht 2000-2001, p. 178.

30 (back to entry)

Adriaen van de Velde

(1636-I672)

The Beach at Scheveningen, 1670
Oil on canvas, 15 Vi x 19% in.
(39-4x50.2 cm)

Signed and dated lower left, on boat:
A. v .Veldef/1670

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.14

PROVENANCE

Steevens, Antwerp. 1 Cretien-Louis-
Joseph de Guignes (1759-1845), 2 Paris
(estate sale, Paris, Bonnefons de Lavialle,
17 Jan. 1846, lot 38, sold for 4,001 francs
to); Charles-Marie-Tanneguy Duchatel
(1803-1867), Paris. Louis Lebeuf de
Montgermont (i84i?-i9i8), Paris (sale,
Paris, Georges Petit, 16-19 June 1919, lot
211, as dated 1630, ill., sold for 24,000
francs to); [Sedelmeyer, Paris]. 3 A. Preyer,
The Hague, by 1923 (estate sale, Amster¬
dam, F. Muller & Cie, 8 Nov. 1927, lot 33,

as dated 1670). 4 Anonymous (sale,
Amsterdam, F. Muller, 30 Nov. 1932, lot
307). 5 Bastiaan de Geus van den Heuvel
(1886-1976), 6 Nieuwersluis aan de Vecht,
by 1939 (sale, Amsterdam, Sotheby Mak
van Waay, 26 Apr. 1976, lot 74, sold to);
[G. Cramer, The Hague, for]; 7 Mr. and
Mrs. Edward William Carter, Los
Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Rotterdam 1939-40, no. 54, fig. xxxii;
Rotterdam 1945-46, no. 48, ill.; The
Hague 1948, no. 268; on loan, Stedelijk
van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven,

1949-50; Dordrecht 1951 (mentioned as
exh. in 1976 sale cat. but unidentified
and possibly independent loan);
Schiedam 1952-53, no. 80; Arnhem
1960-61, no. 72, pi. 67; Dordrecht 1963,
no. 125, fig. 114; San Francisco-Toledo-
Boston 1966-67, no. 61, ill.; Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, no.
24, pp. 98-101, ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93,
no. 24, pp. 98-101, ill.

REFERENCES

Hirschmann 1923, p. 136, ill. p. 137;
Stechow 1968, pp. 108,209n29; Bol 1973,
p. 245n44i; Amsterdam-Boston-
Philadelphia 1986-87, pp. 493-94,
495n2; Madrid 1994 - 95 , P- 231m.

NOTES

1 According to the De Guignes sale catalogue, the
painting had belonged to the “Ancienne collection
Steevens d’Anvers.”

2 According to the sale catalogue, De Guignes was a
former resident of China, where he served as
consul general from France and correspondent of
the Institut de France. His Dictionnaire chinois,
frangais et latin, le vocabulaire chinois latin, published
in Paris in 1813, was strongly criticized as a copy of
an earlier work (see Wikipedia). The collection
was especially strong in Dutch paintings. The sale
of old master paintings from his collection
succeeded one of Chinese curiosities.

3 Hirschmann 1923, p. 130, notes that Preyer
purchased a painting by Pieter de Hooch from the
Lebeuf de Montgermont auction in Paris, which
he says took place in 1918. It is possible that
Sedelmeyer was buying for Preyer or sold the
painting directly to him after the sale.

4 Hirschmann 1923, p. 130. Preyer was a dealer, but
according to Hirschmann, this painting was part
of his personal collection.

5 This information apparently came from Hans
Cramer. The sale catalogue does not identify the
sellers, and there appears to be no evidence that it
was, as indicated in Los Angeles-Boston-New York

254

1981-82, in the sale of August Janssen, who died
in 1918. Regarding the collection of August
Janssen, see Hirschmann 1920.

6 An unidentified and undated article (www.iisg.nl
/ondernemers/pdf/pers-o523-o3.pdf) describes
Bastiaan de Geus van den Heuvel as an art collector.
He was a partner in the family construction firm
Gebrs. De Geus van den Heuvel & Blankevoort,
Amsterdam, which built waterworks, railways,
canals, etc. After retiring from the firm in 1929,
Bastiaan de Geus van den Heuvel devoted himself
to his large collection of seventeenth-century
Dutch paintings.

7 Edward Carter actually purchased the painting
jointly with Hans Cramer, who attended the sale.
In late August, after the painting was restored.
Carter purchased Cramer’s half share.

31 (back to entry)

Esaias van de Velde

(1587-1630)

Cottages and Frozen River, 1629

Oil on paper, mounted on wood,

8% x 13 V 8 in. (21.3 x 33.3 cm)

Signed and dated lower left: E. V. VELDE

1629

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.15

PROVENANCE 1

[D. A. Hoogendijk & Co., Amsterdam]. 2
Private collection, Groningen, ca.
1948-80; Private collection, Wassenaar,
1980; [Nystad, The Hague, in 1980, sold
1981 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William
Carter, given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 25, pp. 103-4, ill.; Amsterdam-
Boston-Philadelphia 1987-88, no. 108,
pp. 502-3, ill.; Los Angeles 1991-92,
no. 25, pp. 103-4, ill.

REFERENCES

Keyes 1984, no. 85, pp. 72,142, pi. 258,
pi. XXIV; Briels 1997, pp. 236-37, fig. 174b.

NOTES

1 On the back of the panel is a gray wax seal with
three horizontally displayed keys and an illegible
remnant of a red wax seal.

2 According to Nystad.

32 (back to entry)

Willem van de Velde the
Younger

(1633-1707)

Beach with Fishing Boats Fulled Up
on Shore, ca. 1673
Oil on wood, 12% x 1 6 15 /\e in.
(31.4x43 cm)

Signed lower center, on a piece of
driftwood: WW

Gift of Mrs. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.16

PROVENANCE

Richard Winstanley (d. 1836), London,
by 1835 1 (estate sale, London, Christie’s,
16 Mar. 1850, lot 57, sold for 189 guineas
to); [Holloway]. 2 Richard Winstanley,
London (estate sale, London, Christie’s,

6 Mar. 1858, lot 33, sold for £131.5.0 to);
[Alfred Gritten, London]. 3 Major J. L.
Curtis, Langford Hall, Newark,
Nottinghamshire (sale, London,
Christie’s, 9 July 1937, lot 95, sold for
£378 to); [Horace Buttery, London].
[Thos. Agnew & Sons, London, sold 1962
to]; [P. de Boer, Amsterdam, sold 1962
to]; H. Becker, Dortmund, until at least
1967, sold through; [G. Cramer Oude
Kunst, The Hague, to]; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter, Los Angeles,
given 2009 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 26, pp. 106-8, ill.; Los Angeles
1992-93, no. 26, pp. 106-8, ill.

REFERENCES

Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 150;
HdG 1908-27, vol. 7 (1923), no. 344,
p. 94; Fritz 1967, no. 89, ill.; M. Robinson
1973 - 74 , vol. 2 (1974), no. 971, P- 23;

J. Walsh 1981, p. 384, fig. 5; M. Robinson
1990, vol. 2, no. 61, pp. 876-78; The
Hague 2002, pp. 180-81, fig. 34a.

NOTES

1 According to Smith 1829-42, vol. 6 (1835), no. 150.
M. Robinson 1990, says “probably” Winstanley.
The identification of the Carter painting with that
in the Winstanley auctions of 1850 and 1858 is
confirmed by the annotation in the copy of the
1858 sale at the Getty Research Institute as well as
by a label affixed to the back of the panel by Alfred
Gritten. In the 1850 sale, Richard Winstanley is
identified as “Esq.” He may be related to
Winstanley auctioneers who were active in
Liverpool from at least 1803 to 1841.

2 The painting was probably bought in. Holloway
is listed as the buyer of seven of the ten paintings
that reappear in the 1 April 1858 sale of paintings
from the collection of Richard Winstanley.

3 The name was previously identified as Alfred
Grilten, undoubtedly a misreading of Michael S.
Robinson’s handwritten note to Hannah Carter
attached to a letter of 10 July 1976 (Van de Velde
object file. Department of European Painting and
Sculpture, LACMA). According to Robinson, who
cited information from the London Post Office
Directories, Alfred Gritten was an art dealer
located at 74 Piccadilly, London, from 1859 to 1861.
Robinson speculated that he was “one of the
sons of Henry Gritten & Sons, picture dealers,
who were at 9 King Street (almost next-door

to Christie’s) from 1844 to 1858.” A letter dated
28 February 1861 (Van de Velde object file.
Department of European Painting and Sculpture,
LACMA) addressed “Dear Sir” with the address 74
Piccadilly [London], confirms that the buyer was
Alfred Gritten. The signature is broken but the
letter appears to be signed “H. Graves [for?] Alfred
Gritten.”

33 (back to entry)

Willem van de Velde
the Younger and workshop

(1633-1707)

A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm, 1671
Oil on canvas, 13 14 x 17 14 in.

( 33 - 7 X 43-8 cm)

Signed and dated lower right, on plank
in water: w v velde 1671

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

M.2009.106.17

PROVENANCE

Possibly Despeniel, Paris, 1765; 1 [Frederic]
Kalkbrenner (1785-1849), 2 sold Paris,
1835, for 5,500 francs to; 3 [Christianus
Johannes Nieuwenhuys, Brussels and
London, sold by 1836 to]; Joseph
Barchard, London, by inheritance to; 4
Francis Barchard (d. 1856), Horsted
Place, Uckfield, Sussex, by inheritance
to his son; Elphinstone Barchard (1827-
1893), by inheritance to his great-
nephew; 5 Francis Barchard (d. ca. 1932),
Horsted Place, Uckfield, Sussex, by
inheritance to his wife; Maud Barchard, 6
Horsted Place, Uckfield, Sussex (sale,
London, Sotheby’s, 2 July 1958, lot 35,
sold for £2,100 to); [Edward Speelman,
Ltd., London, sold Nov. 1958 to];
[Kleinberger & Co., New York, sold 1959
to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 2009 to; LACMA.

255

EXHIBITIONS

London 1836, no. 39, as Sea-shore , with a
Yacht and Other Vessels , lent by Joseph
Barchard, Esq.; London 1875, no. 245, as
Dutch Boats in a Calm, 12 Yzx 17, lent by F.
Bar chard; Los Angeles-Boston-New
York 1981-82, no. 27, pp. 109-11, ill.; Los
Angeles 1992-93, no. 27, pp. 109-11, ill.;
San Marino 1995, no. 30, p. 34, ill.

REFERENCES

Smith 1829-42, vol. 9 (Supplement,
1842), no. 2, p. 757, as collection Joseph
Barchard; 7 HdG 1908-27, vol. 7 (1923),
no. 263, p. 74; 8 J. Walsh 1981, p. 384, fig.

6; M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, no. 62, pp.
363-64, ill. p. 360.

NOTES

1 According to Kleinberger. Michael Robinson says
there is no evidence for this.

2 The musician Frederic Wilhelm Michael
Kalkbrenner also owned Jacob van Ruisdael’s
Extensive Landscape with a Ruined Castle and a Village
Church (private collection. New York), Slive 2001a,
no. 56. An estate sale of Frederic Kalkbrenner’s
collection of thirty old master paintings was held
in Paris by Laneuville on 14 January 1850.

3 According to M. Robinson 1990, vol. 1, p. 364,
referring to Smith 1829-42. The sale is
unrecorded.

4 The entry for the painting in the 1958 sale
catalogue incorrectly states that the painting was

“From the Collection of Joseph Bernhard,” rather
than Joseph Barchard. According to an annotation
made by Ellis K. Waterhouse on p. 16 of the Getty
Research Institute’s copy of the 2 July 1958 sale,
“Mainly bt. by Joseph Barchard, a client of
Nieuwenhuys at the beginning of the 19th
century. He bequeathed them to Francis Barchard,
thence to Elphinstone Barchard, great uncle of [?]
Francis Barchard whose widow is the vendor [Mrs.
Maud Barchard]. (He died ca. 1932.)” It was
apparently the elder Francis Barchard who lent
the painting to the Royal Academy of Arts,
London, in 1875. According to Mireur 1911-12
(2001), vol. 7, p. 312, in 1828 (sale not identifiable)
J[oseph] Barchard sold another painting, Un calme,
which had been in the sale of the due de Choiseul
in 1772 and described by Mireur, p. 311, as “Un
calme. Vers la droite, un vaisseau navigue sous des
oiles de misaine et de hune; une barque est a
gauche et plus loin, au fond, on apergoit deux
fregates, un sloop et quelques batiments. Bois
(23.6 x 27.9).”

5 The painting and property may have first passed
to Elphinstone Barchard’s son Edmund
Elphinstone Barchard (1874-1915), who died on
the RMS Lusitania in 1915. Edmund was a British
citizen who was living in Columbus, Ohio, with
his wife at the time of his death.

6 Her only son, Lt. Cmdr. Francis Barchard, died in
action during World War II, 25 November 1941.

7 “In ‘A View on the Coast during a Calm’ the

nearest object to the spectator is a fishing smack,
lying close to a sandbank, with eight men on
board, and her masts and sails lying on the deck; a
small boat, with one man in it, lies alongside of
her. On the right is a yacht, with her carved and
gilt stern toward the eye, and on her larboard side
is a small vessel under sail. Others are in the
distance. 1 ft. 3/4 in. by 1 ft. 6 in.—C.” Although
Smith’s description confuses the placement of the
yacht and the number of men on the fishing
smack (there are only three), the provenance of
the painting suggests that it refers to the Carter
painting.

8 John Walsh and Cynthia Schneider in Los
Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82, p. mn2,
questioned the identification of the painting as
HdG no. 263, which they assumed the author had
not seen “but for which he adapted the
information from Smith,” since he cited Joseph
Barchard, 1842, as the last owner. They noted
discrepancies in the dimensions and description
of the painting. However, comparing Hofstede de
Groot’s description of the painting to that by
Smith reveals that he actually corrected the
earlier author (see n. 7 above), who incorrectly
placed the yacht on the right of the painting
rather than the left. HdG no. 163: “Fishing-boats
near the Shore in a Calm. Sm[ith] Suppl. 2.—By a
sandbank in front lies a boat carrying eight men;
her mast and sails lie on the deck. A small boat
with one man on board is alongside. To the left is
a yacht, with her carved and gilt stern turned
toward the spectator; on her port side is a small
sailing-boat. Other vessels are in the distance.
Cloudy sky, presaging a change of weather.
Canvas. 12^ inches by 18 inches.” The identity of
the Carter painting with HdG no. 263 and Smith,
vol. 9, no. 2 is supported by the fact, now
recognized, that the painting was sold in 1955 by
a descendant of Joseph Barchard, the owner in
1842.

34 (back to entry)

Simon de Vlieger

(16OO/16OI-I653)

View of a Beach, 1646

Oil on canvas, 34^6 x 53 14 in.

(87.2 x 135.9 cm)

Signed and dated lower right:
SDE VLIEGER 1646

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter

AC1995.179.1

PROVENANCE

Possibly Johanna van den Berch (Bergh),
Amsterdam and Achtienhoven, widow
of Gerard Stijls (d. 1673), provost of the
College of the Admiralty of Amsterdam,
later wife of Justus van Sonsbeeck,
sheriff of Achtienhoven, by 9 Feb. 1678,
as “f.46 1 een Tesselstrant van Jan de
Vlieger.” 2 Possibly John Stewart (sale,
London, Barford, 11 Mar. 1783, lot 59, as
"A sea view on the coast of Holland, a

calm, with a variety of shipping and
boats; a very brilliant and transparent
picture, in high preservation,” sold for
£48.6). Probably George Watson Taylor
(1770-1841), London and Erlestoke
Mansion near Devizes, Wiltshire (sale,
London, Christie’s, 13 June 1823, lot 51,
as “A Harbour with Boats near a Strand,
and a Ship firing a Salute, a Fisherman
in the front ground; the Scene is
enlivened by a beautiful sky. An
Admirable Picture for richness of colour
and transparent effect,” sold for £131.5
to); Lawley, 3 18 Grosvenor Square,
London. T. A. Carlyon, Bournemouth
(estate sale, London, Christie’s, 4 Oct.
1946, lot 83, as “The Arrival of the
Prince of Orange, at Flushing,” sold for
£483 to); [D. Katz, Dieren]. [A. Kauf-
mann, London, in 1946]. [Alfred Brod,
London, 1952]. Mrs. M. D. Langloh-van
den Bergh, Wassenaar (sale, London,
Sotheby’s, 10 Dec. 1980, lot 82, sold to);
[David Koetser, Geneva, sold 1981 to];

Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter,
Los Angeles, given 1995 to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
addendum, n.p., ill.; The Hague-San
Francisco 1990-91, no. 68, pp. 463-67,
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 35, pp.
140-43, ill.; Madrid 1994 - 95 , no. 75,
pp. 248-49, ill.; Los Angeles 2000.

REFERENCES

Stechow 1968, p. I04ni9; Kelch 1971,
no. 129, p. 148; Bol 1973, p. 184; WCA 32
(1980), p. 343; J- Walsh 1981, pp. 383-84,
pi. vii; “The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter”
2003, p. 21.

NOTES

1 46 florins. Note, all the paintings listed in the
inventory were valued 46 florins.

2 “A beach at Texel by Jan de Vlieger.” The painting
is mentioned in the inventory made of Johanna
van den Bergh’s possessions in anticipation of her
remarriage: “Inventaris van de goederen die
Johanna vanden Berch weduwe van Gerard Stijls
in sijn leven geweldige provost van het Collegie
ter Admiraliteijt tot Amsterdam heft ingebracht
by haar huwelijk met Justus van Sonsbeeck schout
van Achtienhoven,” 9 Feb. 1678, Gemeentearchief,
Utrecht, GAU Uo8oaoos, fols. 42r-55r (quoted
from Getty Provenance Index, Archival
Inventories Database, N-75). No seventeenth-

256

century artist is known with the last name De
Vlieger and the first name of Jan; the attribution
probably represents the notary’s misreading of
the S with which Simon de Vlieger signed the
painting.

3 Possibly Paul Beilby Lawley (1784-1852), 1st Baron
Wenlock, who changed his name to Paul Beilby
Thompson in 1820.

35 (back to entry)

Emanuel de Witte

(l6l6/l8-l692)

Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft with

the Tomb of William the Silent, 1653

Oil on wood, 32*4 x 25% in.

(82.6 x65.1cm)

Signed and dated lower right, on the

column: E • De Witte / Ao 1653

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter

M.2003.108.5

PROVENANCE

Possibly anonymous (sale, Soeterwoude
near Leiden, 15 June 1779, lot 10,
described as "Het Choor van de nieuwe
Kerk te Delft, met het Monument van
Prins Willem den Eersten; ’t welk
gedeeltelyk door een gordyn (dat daar
voor schynt te hangen) bedekt word,
konstig op panel geschildert. Hoog 24,
breed 20c!,” 1 sold for 125 florins to);
[Abraham Delfos (1731-1820), Leiden]. 2
[Newhouse Galleries, New York, sold
1978 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward William
Carter, Los Angeles, given 2003 to;
LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82,
no. 28, pp. 112-16, ill.; Rotterdam 1991,
no. 34, pp. 184-87, ill. and cover; Los
Angeles 1992-93, no. 28, pp. 112-16, ill.;
New York-London 2001, no. 93, pp. 108,
436-39, ill.

REFERENCES

Jantzen 1979, no. 615b, p. 241; J. Walsh
1981, pp. 387-88, ill; Liedtke 1982, no.
237, pp. 115,125, ill. VIII; Montias 1987,
p. 73; Harwood 1988, p. 24; Montias 1989,
fig. 53; Gout and Verschuyl 1989, ill.;

L. de Vries 1992, p. 53, fig. 71; Takayama
ca. 1996; Liedtke 2000, pp. 126-27;
London 2001, pp. 40-41, ill.

NOTES

1 “The choir of the New Church of Delft, with the
monument of Prince William the First; which is
partly covered with a curtain (that appears to
hang), artfully painted on panel, height 24, width
20 duim.” A duirn (thumb) is approximately
equivalent to an inch. The Carter painting is the
only painting presently known that fits this
description, except for dimensions. Rotterdam
1991, p. 185m, notes that errors in measurements
often appear in old auction catalogues. The
reference may, however, refer to another, now-lost,
painting.

2 Abraham Delfos was active in Leiden as an
engraver, dealer, and auctioneer. According to the
Getty Provenance Index, Sales Catalogs Database,
N-113, Delfos at various times “owned works of
considerable importance, and on occasion acted
as agent for both Mr. Pieter Cornelis van Leyden
(1717-1788) and his son Diderick, baron van
Leyden (1744-1810).”

(back to entry)

Emanuel de Witte

(l6l6/l8-l692)

Interior of the Oude Kerk , Amsterdam,

165 [?]

Oil on wood, 18 14 x 22^6 in.

(46.4 x56.4 cm)

Signed and dated lower center, on the
edge of the lifted paving stone: E. De
WIT [illegible] 165 [illegible]

Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter
M.2009.106.18

PROVENANCE

Probably Wierman, Amsterdam (sale,
Amsterdam, Van der Land, 18 Aug. 1762,
lot 106, "Een Gezigt van een gedeelte
der Oude Kerk te Amsteldam, van
binnen langs de Westzyde en het Orgel
heen te zien naar den Predikstoel,
voorzien met een ryke stoffagie van
allerhande Beeldjes; alles zeer natuur-
lyk met een Zonnelicht, dat ’er kwik en
aardig in speeld, geschildert, door
Emanuel de Wit; hoog 17 14 , breeti 2 14
duimen. [sold for] 63- o [florins]”). 1
Nicholaas Nieuhoff, Amsterdam (sale,
Amsterdam, Philippe van der Schley,
Hendrick de Winter, and Jan Yver, 14-17
Apr. 1777, lot 242, "Hoog 18, en breed 22
duim. Pnl. Een gezigt van een gedeelte
der oude kerk, van Amsterdam, van
binnen ter regter zyde, ziet men den
predikant op den stoel, de welke van
een menigte volk, der beide sexen, word
aangehoord, ter linke zyde een capel, en
verder \ groote orgel, boven den ingang,
dit stuk is zeer uitvoerig en verstandig,

door zyn aangename valligten en
groote glaazen gedaagd,” sold for 95
florins to); Wagenaer, Amsterdam. 2
Anonymous (sale, London, Christie’s, 31
May 1902, lot 102). 3 [art trade, Paris,
1942]. 4 Frangois Boucher (1885-1966), 5
Paris, sold to; M. Salavin, 6 Paris, sold to;
[Frederick Mont, Inc., New York, owned
with]; [Newhouse Galleries, New York,
sold 1968 to]; Mr. and Mrs. Edward
William Carter, Los Angeles, given 2009
to; LACMA.

EXHIBITIONS

Paris 1950, no. 85; Los Angeles-Boston-
New York 1981-82, no. 29, pp. 117-19,
ill.; Los Angeles 1992-93, no. 29, pp.
117-19, ill.

REFERENCES

Trautscholdt 1947, p. 125, as dated 165 [4];
Manke 1963, no. 44, p. 87, fig. 39, as
"165(4? eher 9 [illegible])”; Stechow 1972,
p. 232, fig. 9; Montias 1987, p. 73;
Scholten 2003, p. 13, fig. 6.

NOTES

1 Hoet and Terwesten 1770 (1976), vol. 3, no. 106,
p. 270. The description agrees with the painting.
The length noted in the transcription by Hoet and
Terwesten does not, however, match that of the
Carter painting but may indicate either a
misreading or a typo. The numeral 1 directly
follows the word Breet and is separated from the 2.

2 This is not Jan Wagenaar, the historian of the city
of Amsterdam who died in 1773.

3 The sale was called H. Bedingfeld and others. This
lot is listed under “Other Properties.”

4 Trautscholdt 1947, p. 125.

5 According to the dealer Frederick Mont (letter to
Mr. Carter, De Witte object file. Department of
European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA),
Salavin bought the painting from “Monsieur
Frangois Boucher (deceased) who was formerly
the Conservateur du Musee Carnavalet in Paris.”
In 1944 Boucher mounted an exhibition at the
museum to celebrate and document for future
historians the liberation of Paris.

6 According to Frederick Mont, Salavin was then
“considered the most important chocolate
manufacturer of France.” Between 1972 and 1973
several sales of his apparently sizable collection
took place in Paris. The sales included old master
and modern paintings as well as sculpture and
objets d’art.

257

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amsterdam 1665

Beschryvinge van Amsterdam: Haar eerste oorspronk uyt
den huyze der Heeren van Aemstel en Aemstellant ... met
een historisch verhael, vervettende ’tgeen in, en om dezelve,
van den beginne af, tot dezen tegenwoordigen jare 1665 is
voorgevalien. Uytverscheyde oude en nieuweHollandtsche
kronijcken, beschrijvingen, brieven, willekeuren, &. by een
vergadertmeteen byvoezel van derregeerende heeren ... met
honderten twintigh ajbeeldingen verfiert. Amsterdam,
1665.

Amsterdam 1900

Catalogus derverzamelingschilderijen enfamilieportretten
van de heeren]hr. P. H. Six van Vromade, enjhr. W. Six
wegensverbouwingin hetStedelijk Museum van
Amsterdam tentoongesteld. Amsterdam, 1900.

Amsterdam 1906

Maitres hollandaise duXVIIe siecle. Exh. cat., Frederik
Muller & Cie, Amsterdam, 10 July-15 Sept. 1906.
Amsterdam, 1906.

Amsterdam 1918

Album ter herinneringaan de tentoonstellingvan Oude
Meesters. Exh. cat., Frederik Muller & Cie,
Amsterdam, 1918. Amsterdam, 1918.

Amsterdam 1929

Tentoonstellingvan oude kunst:Door de Vereenigingvan
Handelaren in OudeKunstin Nederland in het
Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, 1929. Amsterdam, 1929.

Amsterdam 1933

HetStilleven. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel J. Goudstikker,
Amsterdam, 18 Feb-26 Mar. 1933. Amsterdam, 1933.

Amsterdam 1934

De Helsche en de Fluweelen Brueghel en hun invloed op de
kunstin deNederlanden. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de
Boer, Amsterdam, 10 Feb.-26 Mar. 1934. Amsterdam,
1934 .

Amsterdam 1938

D [irk] Hannema. Schilderijen en teekeningen: PieterJansz.
Saenredam, 1597-1665. Exh. cat.. Museum Fodor,
Amsterdam, 1938. Amsterdam, 1938.

Amsterdam 1952

Zomer-Tentoonstellingvan oude schilderijen: Collectie C. V.
Kunsthandel P. deBoer. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de
Boer, Amsterdam, 4 July-24 Aug. 1952. Amsterdam,
1952.

Amsterdam 1957-58

Winter-Tentoonstellingvan oude schilderijen: Collectie C. V.
Kunsthandel P. deBoer. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de
Boer, Amsterdam, 1957-31 Jan. 1958. Amsterdam,
1957 -

Amsterdam 1959

Catalogue of OldPictures. Exh. cat., Kunsthandel P. de
Boer, Amsterdam, 1959. Amsterdam, 1959.

Amsterdam 1976

Tot leringen vermaak: Beteekenissen van Hollandse
genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw. Exh. cat.,
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 16 Sept-5 Dec. 1976.
Amsterdam, 1976.

Amsterdam 1977

Kunstveilingen Sotheby Mak van Waay B.V. The
Collection of the Late Dr. Hans Wetzlar. Sale, Amsterdam,
9 June 1977-

Amsterdam 1984

Noortje Bakker et al. Masters of Middelburg. Exh. cat..
Waterman Gallery, Amsterdam, 1984. Amsterdam,
1984.

Amsterdam 1990-91

Bernard Aikema and Boudewijn Bakker. Painters of
Venice: The Story of the Venetian “Veduta.” Exh. cat.,
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 15 Dec. 1990-10 Mar.
1991. The Hague, 1990.

Amsterdam 1993-94

Ger Luijten, Ariane van Suchtelen, Reiner Baarsen,
et al. Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art,
1580-1620. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,

11 Dec. 1993-6 Mar. 1994. Amsterdam and Zwolle,
1993 -

Amsterdam 1997

Jan Peeters, Eymert-Jan Goossens, et al., eds. The
Royal Palace of Amsterdam in Paintings of the Golden Age.
Exh. cat.. Royal Palace, Amsterdam, 6 June-7 Sept.
1997. Amsterdam and Zwolle, 1997.

Amsterdam 2000

Judikje Kiers, Ficke Tissink, et al. The Glory of the
Golden Age: Dutch Art of the 17th Century. Paintings,
Sculpture, and Decorative Art. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, 15 Apr-17 Sept. 2000. Amsterdam and
Zwolle, 2000.

Amsterdam 2007

Jonathan Bikker, Yvette Bruijnen, Gerdien
Wuestman, et al. Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth
Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Vol. 1, Artists
Born between 1570 and 1600. Amsterdam, 2007.

Amsterdam-Boston-Philadelphia 1987-88
Peter C. Sutton et al. Masters of17th-Century Dutch
Landscape Painting. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam, 2 Oct. 1987-3 Jan. 1988; Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, 3 Feb.-i May 1988; Philadelphia
Museum of Art, 5 June-31 July 1988. Boston, 1987.

Amsterdam-Cleveland 1999-2000

Alan Chong and Wouter Kloek. Still-Life Paintings
from the Netherlands, 1550-1720. Exh. cat.,
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 19 June-19 Sept. 1999;
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1 Oct. 1999-9 Jan. 2000.
Amsterdam, Cleveland, and Zwolle, 1999.

Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10

Pieter Roelofs et al. Hendrick Avercamp: Master of the Ice
Scene. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 21 Nov.
2009-15 Feb. 2010; National Gallery of Art,
Washington, DC, 21 Mar-5 July 2010. Amsterdam,
2009.

Amsterdam-Zwolle 1982
Albert Blankert, Doortje Hensbroek-van der Poel,
George Keyes, et al. Hendrick Avercamp, 1585-1634;
Parent Avercamp, 1612-1679: Frozen Silence. Paintings from
Museums and Private Collections. Exh. cat.. Waterman
Gallery, Amsterdam; Provinciaal Overijssels
Museum, Zwolle, 1982. Amsterdam, 1982.

Antwerp-Madrid 2016-17

Alejandro Vergara et al. The Art of Clara Peeters. Exh.
cat.. Museum Rockoxhuis, Antwerp, 16 June-2 Oct.
2016; Museo Nacional de Prado, Madrid, 25 Oct.
2016-19 Feb. 2017. Madrid, 2016.

Arnhem 1960-61

Collectie B. de Geus van den Heuvel te Nieuwersluis. Exh.
cat., Gemeentemuseum, Arnhem, 11 Dec. 1960-26
Feb. 1961. Arnhem, i960.

Ashton, Davies, and Slive 1982
Peter S. Ashton, Alice I. Davies, and Seymour Slive.
“Jacob van Ruisdael’s Trees.” Arnoldia 42, no. 1
(Winter 1982): 2-31.

Auckland-Wellington-Christchurchi982
E. de Jongh with Titia van Leeuwen, Andrea C.
Gasten, and Hilary Sayles. Still-life in the Age of
Rembrandt. Exh. cat., Auckland City Art Gallery;
National Art Gallery, Wellington; and Robert
McDougall Art Gallery, Christchurch, 1982-83.
Auckland, 1982.

Baird 1987

Robert Baird. “The First Major Importer of
Trakehner Stock into North America.” American
Trakehner. Republished 1987 as americantrakehner
.com/trakehner/GF.asp.

Baltimore 1999

Nancy Minty and Joaneath Spicer, et al. An Eye for
Detail: 17th-Century Dutch and Flemish Paintings from the
Collection of Henry H. Weldon. Exh. cat., Walters Art
Gallery, Baltimore, 20 June-5 Sept. 1999. Baltimore,
1999 -

Barker 1994

Nicolas Barker. HortusEystettensis: The Bishop's Garden
and Besler’s Magnificent Book. New York, 1994.

258

Bartsch

Adam Bartsch. Lepeintregraveur. 21 vols. Vienna,
1803-21.

Illustrated Bartsch

Adam Bartsch. The Illustrated Bartsch. Founding ed.,
Walter L. Strauss, general eds. Anthony S. Kaufmann
and John T. Spike. New York, 1978-.

Basel 1987

Petra ten-Doesschate Chu and Paul H. Boerlin. Im
Lichte Hollands: Hollandische Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts
aus den Sammlungen desFiirsten von Liechtenstein und aus
SchweizerBesitz. Exh. cat., Kunstmuseum Basel,

14 June-27 Sept. 1987. Zurich, 1987.

De Bastide 1766

Jean-Frangois de Bastide. Le temple des arts; ou, Le
cabinet deM. Braamcamp. Amsterdam, 1766.

D. Beck 1993

David Beck. Spiegel van mijn leven: Een Haags dagboek
UU1624. Edited by Sv. E. Veldhuijzen. Egodocu-
menten, deel 3. Hilversum, 1993.

H.-U. Beck 1972-87

Hans-Ulrich Beck. Jan van Goyen, 1596-1656: Bin
Oeuvreverzeichnis. 3 vols. Amsterdam and Doornspijk,
1972-87.

De Beer 2013

Gerlinde de Beer. “Anmerkungen zum Werk von Jan
Porcellis (Gent um 1584-1632 Zoeterwoude bei
Leiden).” In Liber Amicorum Marijke deKinkelder:
Collegial bijdragen over landschappen, marines en
architectuur, ed. Charles Dumas et al., pp. 11-40. The
Hague, 2013.

Bellinger and Regler-Bellinger 2012

Gerhard J. Bellinger and Brigitte Regler-Bellinger.

Schwabings Ainmillerstrafe und ihre bedeutendsten

Anwohner.Ein reprdsentativesBeispiel derMiinchner

Stadtgeschichte von 1888 bis heute. 2nd ed. Norderstedt,

2012.

Ten Berge 1979

Domien ten Berge. De hooggeleerde enzoetvloeiende
dichter Jacob Cats. The Hague, 1979.

Bergen op Zoom etc. 1982

S. J. H. van Hengel et al. Coif kolfgolf: Van middeleeuws
volksspel tot moderne sport. Exh. cat., Gemeente-
museum het Markiezenhof, Bergen op Zoom,

20 Mar.-2 May 1982; Centrum voor Kunst en Cultuur
Sint Pietersabdij, Ghent, 15 May-17 June 1982;
Volkskundemuseum, Antwerp, 10 July-22 Aug. 1982;
Museum Flehite, Amersfoort, 1 Sept.-i7 Oct. 1982.
Zutphen, 1982.

Bergstrom 1947

Ingvar Bergstrom. “Studier I hollandskt stilleben-
maleri under 1600-talet.” PhD diss.. University of
Gothenburg, 1947.

Bergstrom 1956

Ingvar Bergstrom. Dutch Still-life Painting in the
Seventeenth Century. Translation of Bergstrom 1947
by Christina Hedstrom and Gerald Taylor. London,
1956.

Bernt1960-62

Walther Bernt. Die niederlcindischen Maler des 17.
Jahrhunderts. With introduction by Hans Sauermann.
4 vols., 2nd, revised, and enlarged edition. Munich,
1960-62.

Bernt1970

Walther Bernt. The Netherlandish Painters of the
Seventeenth Century. Translation of 3rd German
edition by P. S. Falla. 3 vols. London, 1970.

Bernt 1979-80

Walther Bernt. Die niederlcindischen Maler undZeichner
des 17. Jahrhunderts. 5 vols., 4th ed. Munich, 1979-80.

Van Beverwyck 1636

Johan van Beverwyck. Schat dergesontheyt met veersen
verpiert doorHeerJacob Cats. Dordrecht, 1636.

Bezemer-Sellers 1990

Vanessa Bezemer-Sellers. “The Bentinck Garden at
Sorgvliet.” In Hunt 1990, pp. 99-130.

De Bie 1662 (1971)

Cornelis de Bie. Het Gulden Cabinet vandeEdel Vry
Schilder-Const. Antwerp, 1662. Introduction by G.
Lemmens. Soest, 1971.

De Bievre 1988

Elizabeth de Bievre. “Violence and Virtue: History
and Art in the City of Haarlem.” Art History 11, no. 3
(1988): 303-34-

Bijl et al. 2008

Martin Bijl, Nico Lingbeek, Carol Pottasch, and
Petria Noble. “Technical Research.” In The Hague
2008, p. 127.

Bille 1961

Clara Bille. De tempel der kunst; of het kabinetvan den
Heer Braamcamp. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1961.

Birmingham 1950

Some Dutch Cabinet Pictures of the Seventeenth Century.
Exh. cat., Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery,
Birmingham, UK, 26 Aug.-8 Oct. 1950. Introduction
by Mary Woodall. Birmingham, 1950.

Blanc 1857-58

Charles Blanc. Le tresorde la curiosite. ... 2 vols. Paris,
1857-58.

Blankert 1982

Albert Blankert. “Hendrick Avercamp.” In
Amsterdam-Zwolle 1982, pp. 15-36.

Blankert, Barnouw-de Ranitz, and Stal 1991
Albert Blankert, Louise Barnouw-de Ranitz, and
C. J. J. Stal. Museum Bredius: Catalogus van de schilderijen
en tekeningen. The Hague and Zwolle, 1991.

Van Bleyswijck 1667-81

Dirk Evertsz. van Bleyswijck. Beschryvinge derstadt
Delft; betrejfende des seifs situatie, oorsprongen ouderdom,
opkomst en voortgangh ... voor-af met een korte
beschrijvinge van Delflandt.... 2 vols. Delft, 1667-81.

Bode 1907

Wilhelm von Bode. Rembrandt und seineZeitgenossen.
2nd ed. Leipzig, 1907.

Bode 1909

Wilhelm von Bode. Great Masters of Dutch andFlemish
Painting. London, 1909.

Boisclair 1986

Marie-Nicole Boisclair. GaspardDughet:Sa vie et son
oeuvre, 1615-1675. Paris, 1986.

Bol 1952-53

Laurens J. Bol. “Adriaen S. Coorte, stillevenschilder.”
Nederlands kunsthistorischjaarboek 4 (1952-53):

193-232.

Bol 1955

Laurens J. Bol. “Een Middelburgse Brueghel-groep.”
Oud Holland 70 (1955): part 1,1-20; part 2,96-109.

Bol i960

Laurens J. Bol. The BosschaertDynasty: Painters of
Flowers and Fruit. Translated by A. M. De Bruin-
Cousins. Leigh-on-Sea, i960.

Bol 1969

Laurens J. Bol. Hollandische Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts
ndhe dengrossen Meistern: Landschaften und Stilleben.
Braunschweig, 1969.

Bol 1973

Laurens J. Bol. Die hollandischeMarinemalerie des 17.
Jahrhunderts. Translated by Hildegard Aarsen-
Hiirthle. Braunschweig, 1973.

Bol 1977

Laurens J. Bol. Adriaen Coorte: A Unique Late Seventeenth
Century Dutch Still Life Painter. Translated by Mrs. A. M.
Bruin. Assen, 1977.

Bol 1980

Laurens J. Bol. “‘Goede onbekenden’: Hedendaagse
herkenning en wardering van verscholen, voor-
bijgezien en onderschat talent.” Tableau 2, no. 3
(1980): 132-37-

Bol 1981

Laurens J. Bol. “'Goede onbekenden’: VI. Schilders
van het vroege Nederlandse bloemstuk met
kleingedierte als bijwerk.” Tableau 3, no. 3 (1981):
520-27.

Bol 1982

Laurens J. Bol. “Goede onbekenden”-.Hedendaagse
herkenning en waarderingvan verscholen, voorbijgezien en
onderschat talent. Utrecht, 1982.

Bol 1993

Laurens J. Bol. “Grepen uit de geschiedenis van de
kunst in Zeeland (IV).” Zeeuws Tijdschrift 43, no. 2
(1993): 42-48.

Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and Whitehead 1979
Ernst van den Boogaart, Hendrik Richard Hoetink,
and P. J. P. Whitehead, eds .Johan Maurits van
Nassau-Siegen, 1604-1679: AHumanistPrince in Europe
and Brazil. Essays on the Tercentenary of His Death. The
Hague, 1979.

Borenius 1928

Tancred Borenius. “Twelve Masterpieces of Painting”
[exhibited at Knoedler, 16-28 Apr. 192 8]. Pantheon 1
(May 1928): 267-70.

259

Boston-Kansas City 2015-16

Ronni Baer et al. Class Distinctions: Dutch Fainting in
the Age of Rembrandt and Vermeer. Exh. cat.. Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, 11 Oct. 2015-18 Jan. 2016; Nelson-
Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, MO, 20 Feb.-
29 May 2016. Boston, 2015.

Boucaud 1958

Charles Boucaud. Lespichets d’etain: Mesures d vin de
Vancienne France. Paris, 1958.

Boxer 1974

Charles Ralph Boxer. The Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th
Century, 1652-1674. London and Palo Alto, CA, 1974.

Braun and Hogenberg 1527-1617 (2008)

Georg Braun and Frans Hogenberg. Civitates orbis
terrarium: Stadt der Welt ... 1572-1617. Edited by
Stephan Fiissel. Cologne and Los Angeles, 2008.

Braunschweig 1978

Wolfgang J. Muller, Konrad Renger, and Rudiger
Klessman. DieSprache derBilder. Exh. cat., Herzog
Anton Ulrich Museum, Braunschweig, 6 Sept.-
5 Nov. 1978. Braunschweig, 1978.

Bredius1892

Abraham Bredius. “De schilder Johannes van de
Cappelle.” Oud Holland 10 (1892): 26-40,133-36.

Bredius 1912

Abraham Bredius. “De nalatenschap van Jan van der
Hey den’s weduwe.” Oud Holland 30 (1912): 128-51.

Bredius 1913

Abraham Bredius. “De Bloemschilders Bosschaert.”
Oud Holland 31 (1913): 137-40.

Bredius et al. 1897-1904

Abraham Bredius et al. Amsterdam in dezeventiende
eeuw. 3 vols. The Hague, 1897-1904.

Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij 1996
Beatrijs Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij. Roots of
Seventeenth-Century Flower Fainting: Miniatures, Plant
Books, Paintings. Leiden, 1996.

Briels 1997

Jan Briels. Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands
Gouden Eeuw, 1585-1630/Peintresflamands au berceau du
Siecle d’Or hollandais, 1585-1630. Antwerp, 1997.

Brienen 2002

Rebecca Parker Brienen. “Albert Eckhout’s Paintings
of the wilde natien’ of Brazil and Africa.” In De Jong,
Ramakers, Roodenburg et al. 2002, pp. 107-37.

Brienen 2006

Rebecca Parker Brienen. Visions of Savage Paradise:
Albert Eckhout, Court Painter in Colonial Dutch Brazil.
Amsterdam, 2006.

Broulhiet 1938

Georges Broulhiet. Meindert Hobbema (1638-1709).
Paris, 1938.

Bruinsma 1954

Henry A. Bruinsma. “The Organ Controversy in the
Netherlands Reformation to 1640.” Journal of the
American Musicological Society 7, no. 3 (Autumn 1954):
205-12.

Brunner-Bulst 2004

Martina Brunner-Bulst. Pieter Claesz.: Der
Hauptmeister des Haarlemer Stillebens im iz]ahrhundert.
Kristischer Oeuvrekatalog. Lingen, 2004.

Brussels 1935

Vijfeeuwen kunst. Algemeene Wereldtentoonstelling.
Exh. cat., Brussels, 24 May-13 Oct. 1935.4 vols.
Brussels, 1935.

Bruyn 1950

J[osua] Bruyn. Le pay sage hollandais auXVIIe siecle. Art
et Style 17 (1950).

Bruyn 1996

J[osua] Bruyn. “Dutch Cheese, a Problem of
Interpretation.” Simiolus 24 (1996): 201- 8.

De Bruyn Kops 1965

C. J. de Bruyn Kops. “De Amsterdamse verzamelaar
Jan Gildemeester ]msz.” Bulletin van hetRijksmuseum
13, no. 3 (1965): 79-114.

Buchanan 1824

William Buchanan. Memoirs of Painting, with a
Chronological History of the Importation ofPictures by the
Great Masters into England since the French Revolution.

2 vols. London, 1824.

Burke 1976

James D. Burke. Jan Both: Paintings, Drawings, Prints.
PhD diss.. Harvard University, 1972. New York, 1976.

Butkens 1626

Christophe Butkens. Les annales genealogiques de la
maison deLynden. Antwerp, 1626.

Buvelot 2004

Quentin Buvelot. “Albert Eckhout: A Dutch Artist in
Brazil.” In The Hague 2004, pp. 17-58.

Cambridge-Montreal 1988

Frederik J. Duparc. Landscape in Perspective: Drawings
by Rembrandt and His Contemporaries. Exh. cat.,

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA, 20 Feb-3 Apr. 1988; Montreal
Museum of Fine Arts, 15 Apn-29 May 1988.

Montreal, 1988.

“The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Carter” 2003
“The Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Carter, Los
Angeles County Museum of Art.” Apollo 158, no. 502
(Dec. 2003): 20-21.

Cats 1880

Jacob Cats. Alle de werken van Jakob Cats. 2 vols.
Dordrecht, 1880.

Chong 1993

Alan Chong. Aelbert Cuyp and the Meanings of Landscape.
PhD diss.. New York University, 1992. Ann Arbor, MI,
1993 -

Connoisseur 1956

“In the Possession of Leonard F. Koetser.” Connoisseur
138, no. 556 (Mar. 1956): cover.

Connoisseur 1974

Christie’s advertisement. Connoisseur 185, no. 745
( 1974 ): 73 -

Correa do Lago and Correa do Lago et al. 2007
Pedro Correa do Lago and Bia Correa do Lago et al.
Frans Post: Catalogue Raisonne. Translated by Izabel
Murat Burbridge, John Norman, and Joao Roberto
Moris; English revision by Gerald Gregory and
Andrew Ellis. Milan, 2007.

Correia de Andrade 1979

Manuel Correia de Andrade. “The Socio-Economic
Geography of Dutch Brazil.” In Van den Boogaart,
Hoetink, and Whitehead 1979, pp. 257-68.

DaCosta Kaufmann et al. 2002

Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann et al. L’artflamand et
hollandais: Belgique etPays-Bas, 1520-1914. L’art et les
grandes civilisations. Paris, 2002.

Dantas Silva 2000

Leonardo Dantas Silva. Dutch Brazil: Frans Post. The
British Museum Drawings. Petropolis, Brazil, 2000.

Dapper 1663 (1975)

Olfert Dapper. Historische beschryving der stadt
Amsterdam: Waerin de voornaemstegeschiedenissen....
Amsterdam, 1663. Reprint. Amsterdam, 1975.

Davies 2014

Alice I. Davies. Antonie van Borssom (1630-1677):

A Catalogue of His Drawings. Doornspijk, 2014.

Decoteau 1992

Pamela Hibbs Decoteau. Clara Peeters, 1594-ca. 1640,
and the Development of Still-Life Painting in Northern
Europe. Flamische Maler im Umkreis der grossen
Meister, vol. 5. Lingen, 1992.

DeCristofaro et al. 1982

Paula DeCristofaro et al. “A Technical Analysis of the
Materials and Methods of Jacob van Ruisdael.” In
Papers Presented by Conservation Students at the Third
Annual Conference of Art Conservation Training
Programmes, pp. 70-90. Queens University, Kingston,
Ontario, 1982.

Delft-Cambridge-Fort Worth 1988-89

Sam Segal. A Prosperous Past/De Rijkdom Verbleck: The
Sumptuous Still Life in the Netherlands, 1600-1700. Exh.
cat., Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof, Delft,

1 July-4 Sept. 1988; Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, 1 Oct.-27 Nov. 1988;
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, 10 Dec. 1988-
4 Feb. 1989. The Hague, 1988.

Delft-Houston 2006-7
Sam Segal with Mariel Ellens and Joris Dik. The
Temptations of Flora/De verleidingvan Flora: Jan van
Huysum, 1682-1749. Exh. cat.. Museum Het
Prinsenhof, Delft, 22 Sept. 2006-7 Jan. 2007;
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 18 Feb.-i3 May 2007.
Zwolle, 2007.

Demiani 1897

Hans Demiani. Francois Briot, CasparEnderlein und das
Edelzinn. Leipzig, 1897.

De Montebello 1982

De Montebello, Philippe. Press release. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, for the opening of The
Mirror of Nature on 15 Apr. 1982. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, Archives: Edward and
Hannah Carter.

260

Detroit 1926

The Third Loan Exhibition of Old Masters. Detroit
Institute of Arts, 1926. Detroit, 1926.

Detroit 1927

The Fifth Loan Exhibition of Old and Modern Masters.
Detroit Institute of Arts, Oct. 1927. Detroit, 1927.

Detroit 1929

Wilhelm Reinhold Valentiner. The Ninth Loan
Exhibition of Dutch Genre and Landscape Paintings
of the Seventeenth Century. Detroit Institute of Arts,

16 Oct-10 Nov. 1929. Detroit, 1929.

Detroit 1939

Loan Exhibition of Dutch Landscape Paintings: 20th Loan
Exhibition of Old Masters. Detroit Institute of Arts,
1939. Detroit, 1939.

Detroit 1949

Masterpieces of Paintings from Detroit Private Collections.
Detroit Institute of Arts, 23 Apr.-22 May 1949.
Detroit, 1949.

Dezallier d’Argenville 1745-52
Antoine Joseph Dezallier d’Argenville. Abregee de la
vie des plusfameuxpeintres:Avec leurs portraits graves en
taille-douce, les indications de leursprincipaux ouvrages,
quelques reflexions sur leurs caracteres, et la manibre de
connoitre les desseins des grands maitres/parM.*** de
I’Academie royale des sciences de Montpellier. 4 vols. Paris,
1745 - 52 .

Dibbits 2004

Taco Dibbits. “Aardbeien, abrikozen, kruisbessen en
perziken: Vier stillevens van Adriaen Coorte.”
Bulletin van hetRijksmuseum 52 (2004): 152-65.

Diedenhofen 1990

Wilhelm Diedenhofen. '“Belvedere/ or the Principle
of Seeing and Looking in the Gardens of Johan
Maurits van Nassau-Siegen at Cleves.” In Hunt 1990,
pp. 49-80.

Dik and Wallert 1998

Joris Dik and Arie Wallert. “Two Still-life Paintings
by Jan van Huysum: An Examination of Painting
Techniques and Materials in Support of Art
Historical Research.” In Looking through Paintings: The
Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of
Art Historical Research, ed. Erma Hermans et al., pp.
391-411. Leids Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 11. Baam,
1998.

Dordrecht 1954

L. J. Bol. Nederlandse stilleven uit vier eeuwen. Exh. cat.,
Dordrechts Museum, 17 July-31 Aug. 1954.
Dordrecht, 1954.

Dordrecht 1963

Nederlandse landschappen uit dezeventiende eeuw.

Exh. cat., Dordrechts Museum, 6 July-2 Sept. 1963.
Dordrecht, 1963.

Dortmund 1954

Meisterwerke alter Malerei. Exh. cat.. Museum fur
Kunst und Kulturgeschichte der Stadt Dortmund/
Schloss Cappenberg, Apr.-July 1954. Dortmund,
1954 .

Du Mortier 2009-10

Bianca du Mortier. “Aspects of Costume: A Showcase
of Early 17th-Century Dress.” In Amsterdam-
Washington 2009-10, pp. 141-63.

Ebbinge-Wubben 1969

J. C. Ebbinge-Wubben. The Thyssen-Bornemisza
Collection. Castagnola, Switzerland, 1969.

Edinburgh 1992

Julia Lloyd Williams. Dutch Art and Scotland: A
Reflection of Taste. Exh. cat.. National Gallery of
Scotland, Edinburgh, 13 Aug.-i8 Oct. 1992.
Edinburgh, 1992.

C. P. van Eeghen 2006

Christiaan P. van Eeghen. “Simon de Vlieger as a
Draftsman, I: The Pen Drawings.” Master Dra wings 44,
no. 1 (2006): 3-47.

C. P. van Eeghen 2011

Christiaan P. van Eeghen. “Simon de Vlieger as a
Draftsman, II: Chalk Drawings Other than Pure
Landscapes.” Master Drawings 49, no. 2 (2011): 179-221.

I. H. van Eeghen 1973

I. H. van Eeghen. “De nakomelingen ban Jan van der
Heyden.” Maandblad voor de kennis van Amsterdam:
Orgaan van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 60 (1973):
128 - 34 -

Van Eijnden and Van der Willigen 1816-40
Roeland van Eijnden and Adriaan van der Willigen.
Geschiedenis dervaderlandsches schilderkunst. 3 vols. and
suppl. Haarlem, 1816-40.

Eindhoven 1946

Herwonnen Kunstbezit. Exh. cat., Stedelijk van
Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, 1-30 Oct. 1946.
Eindhoven, 1946.

Eindhoven 1957-58

Het Hollandse stilleven, 1550-1950. Exh. cat., Stedelijk
van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, 1957-58. Assembled
by A. B. de Vries for the museums in Luxembourg
and Liege for which there were different catalogues.
See Luxembourg-Liege 1957.

Ertz 1979

Klaus Ertz .Jan Brueghel derAltere (1568-1625): Die
Gemalde. Mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog. Cologne, 1979.

Evelyn 1983

The Diary of John Evelyn. Selected and edited by John
Bowie. Oxford and New York, 1983.

Falkenburg 1997

Reindert Leonard Falkenburg. “Schilderachtig weer
bij Jan van Goyen.” In Leiden 1996-97, pp. 50-69.

Faucheux 1857 (1969)

Louis Etienne Faucheux. Catalogue raisonne de toutes
les estampes quifoment Voeuvre d’Israel Silvestre. Paris,
1969.

Filipczak 1995

Zirka Zaremba Filipczak. “A New Studio Practice of
Claesz and Heda: Composing with Real Objects.” In
Shop Talk: Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive, Presented on
His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Cynthia P. Schneider,
William W. Robinson, and Alice I. Davies, pp. 71-73.
Cambridge, MA, 1995.

Frankfurt-Edinburgh-London 2006
Rudiger Klessman, with Emilie E. S. Gordenker and
Christian Tico Seifert. Adam Elsheimer, 1578-1610.
Catalogue for the exhibition Devil in the Detail: The
Paintings of Adam Elsheimer, 1578-1610. Stadelsches
Kunstinstitut und Stadtische Galerie, Frankfurt,

17 Mar-5 June 2006; National Gallery of Scotland,
Edinburgh, 23 June-3 Sept. 2006; Dulwich Picture
Gallery, London, 20 Sept-3 Dec. 2006. London,

2006.

Frankfurter 1939

Alfred M. Frankfurter. Masterpieces of Art Exhibition at
the New York World's Fair 1939: Official Souvenir Guide
and Picture Book. New York, 1939.

Friedlander and Von Falke 1925-26
Max J. Friedlander and Otto von Falke. Die
Kunstsammlungvon Pannwitz. 2 vols. Munich, 1925-26.

Von Frimmel 1904-12

Theodor von Frimmel. Blatter fur Gemaldekunde. 7 vols.
Vienna, 1904-12.

Fritz 1967

Rolf Fritz. Sammlung [Andreas] Becker. Vol. 1, Gemalde
alter Meister. Dortmund, 1967.

Gaskell 1987

Ivan Gaskell. “Tobacco, Social Deviance and Dutch
Art in the Seventeenth Century.” In Hollandische
Genremalerei im lzjahrhundert: Symposium Berlin 1984,
ed. Henning Bock and Thomas W. Gaehtgens, pp.
117-37- Jahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbesitz
Sonderband 4. Berlin, 1987.

Gaskell 1990

Ivan Gaskell. Seventeenth-Century Dutch and Flemish
Painting: The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. London,
1990.

Gerson 1936 (1980)

Horst Gerson. Philips Koninck: Ein Beitragzur
Erforschung der hollandischen Malerei des XVII.
Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1936. PhD diss., Universitat
Gottingen, 1932. Reprint without changes. Berlin,
1980.

Gibson 2000

Walter S. Gibson. Pleasant Places: The Rustic Landscape
from Bruegel to Ruisdael. Berkeley, 2000.

261

Gifford 1998

E. Melanie Gifford. “Esaias van de Velde’s Technical
Innovations: Translating a Graphic Tradition into
Paint.” In Painting Techniques History, Materials and
Studio Practice: Contributions to the Dublin Congress, 7-11
September 1998, ed. Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, pp.
145-49. International Institute for Conservation of
Historic and Artistic Works. London, 1998.

Goedde 1989

Lawrence Otto Goedde. “A Little World Made
Cunningly: Dutch Still Life and Ekphrasis.” In Still
Lifes of the Golden Age: Northern European Paintings from
theHeinzFamily Collection, pp. 35-44. Exh. cat..
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 14 May-
4 Sept. 1989; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 18 Oct-
31 Dec. 1989. Washington, DC, 1989.

Van Gool 1750-51 (1971)

Johan van Gool. De nieuwe schouburg der Nederlantsche
kunstschilders en schilderessen. 2 vols. The Hague,
1750-51. Reprint. Soest, 1971.

Gout and Verschuyl 1989

M. Gout and M. A. Verschuyl. Nieuwe Kerk Delft en

grafmonumentvan Willem van Oranje. Delft, 1989.

Grant 1954

Maurice H. Grant .Jan van Huysum, 1682-1749,

Including a Catalogue Raisonne of the Artist's Fruit and
Flower Paintings. Leigh-on-Sea, 1954.

Graves 1918-21 (1970)

Algernon Graves. Art Sales from Early in the Eighteenth
Century to Early in the Twentieth Century (Mostly Old
Master and Early English Pictures). 3 vols. London,
1918-21. Reprint. New York, 1970.

Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7
Peter C. Sutton with contributions by Jonathan
Bikker et al .Jan van derHeyden (1637-1712). Exh. cat.,
Bruce Museum, Greenwich, CT, 16 Sept. 2006-10 Jan.
2007; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1 Feb.-30 Apr.

2007. Greenwich, CT, 2006.

Greindl 1956

Edith Greindl. Lespeintresflamands de nature morte au
XVIIesiecle. Brussels, 1956.

Greindl 1983

Edith Greindl. Les peintres flamands de nature morte au
XVIIesiecle. Sterrebeek, 1983.

Grimm 1988

Claus Grimm. Stilleben: Die niederlandischen und
deutschenMeister. Stuttgart and Zurich, 1988.

Grisebach 1974

Lucius Grisebach. Willem Kalf, 1619-1693. Berlin, 1974.
Groen and Murray 1991

Karin Groen and Sarah Murray. “Underdrawing in
Four Early Seventeenth Century Flower Paintings.”
In Le dessin sous-jacent dans lapeinture, ed. Helene
Verougstraete-Marcq and Rover van Schoute, pp.
151 - 54 - Colloque VIII, 8-11 Sept. 1989. Louvain-la-
Neuve, 1991.

Guerra 1979

Francisco Guerra. “Medicine in Dutch Brazil,
1624-1654.” In Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and
Whitehead 1979, pp. 472-93.

Guillaumin 1977

J. Guillaumin. “Cours: Tableaux. L’engouement a
fait monte les prix parfoie follement.” Connaissance
des arts 300 (1977): 140.

Guimaraes 1957

A. Guimaraes. “Na Holanda com Frans Post.” Revista
dolnstituto historico egeogrifico brasileiro 335 (1957):
85-295.

Haarlem-London 2008

Pieter Biesboer et al. PaintingFamily: The De Brays,
Master Painters of17th Century Holland. Exh. cat., Frans
Hals Museum, Haarlem, 2 Feb-22 June 2008;
Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, 9 July-5 Oct. 2008.
Zwolle, 2008.

Haarlem-Zurich-Schwerin 2006-7

Pieter Biesboer et al. NicolaesBerchem:In the Light of
Italy. Exh. cat., Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem,

16 Dec. 2006-15 Apr. 2007; Kunsthaus, Zurich,

27 Apn-19 Aug. 2007; Staatliches Museum,
Schwerin, 1 Sept.-2 Dec. 2007. Ghent, 2006.

Haedeke 1968

Hanns-Ulrich Haedeke. Zinn. Kataloge des
Kunstgewerbemuseums Koln, vol. 3. Cologne, 1968.

The Hague 1881

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen van oude meesters in de
zalen van het Gothische paleis in hetNoordeinde te
’s-Gravenhage: Ten behoeve derwatersnoodlijdenden, onder
de hooge beschermingvan HunneMajesteiten den Koning
en deKoningin. Exh. cat., Paleis Noordeinde, The
Hague, 1881. The Hague, 1881.

The Hague 1899

Catalogus van schilderijen van oud-Hollandsche meesters:
Collectie C. Hoogendijk. Exh. cat., Pulchri Studio, The
Hague, 1899. The Hague, 1899.

The Hague 1920

Catalogue de la collection Goudstikker d Amsterdam ....
Exh. cat., Pulchri Studio, The Hague, Nov. 1920. The
Hague, 1920.

The Hague 1929

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen door oud-Hollandsche en
Vlaamsche meesters. Exh. cat., Koninklijke Kunstzaal
Kleykamp, The Hague, 1929. The Hague, 1929.

The Hague 1936-37

Oude kunstuitHaagsch bezit. Exh. cat., Gemeente-
museum. The Hague, 12 Dec. 1936-31 Jan. 1937.

The Hague, 1936.

The Hague 1946

Herwonnen kunstbezit: Tentoonstellingvan uit
Duitschland teruggekeerde nederlandsche kunstschatten.
Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, Mar.-May 1946.
The Hague, 1946.

The Hague 1948

Zeven eeuwen Den Haag. Exhibition by Vereniging
“die Haghe,” Gemeentemuseum, The Hague,

30 July-26 Sept. 1948. The Hague, 1948.

The Hague 1962

Viergeneraties Nystad, 1862-1962. The Hague, 1962.

The Hague 1970

G. Cramer Oude Kunst. Paintings by Old Masters:
Catalogue XVIII/1970-1971. The Hague, 1970.

The Hague 1979-80

E. van den Boogaart and F. J. Duparc with J. J. van
den Besselaar, et al. Zo wijd de wereld strekt:
Tentoonstelling naar aanleiding van de3ooste sterfdag van
Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen op 20 December 1979.
Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 21 Dec. 1979-
1 Mar. 1980. The Hague, 1979.

The Hague 1991

Paul Huys Janssen and Peter C. Sutton. TheHoogsteder
Exhibition of Dutch Landscapes. Exh. cat., Hoogsteder &
Hoogsteder, The Hague, 24 May-13 Oct. 1991. The
Hague, 1991.

The Hague 1992

Beatrijs Brenninkmeyer-De Rooij, Ben Broos, Fred G.
Meijer, and Peter van der Ploeg. Boeketten uit de
Gouden Eeuw: Mauritshuis in bloei/Bouquetsfrom the
Golden Age: The Mauritshuis in Bloom. Exh. cat.,
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 16 Apr-19 July 1992. The
Hague and Zwolle, 1992.

The Hague 2001-2

Ariane van Suctelen et al. Holland Frozen in Time: The
Dutch Winter Landscape in the Golden Age. Exh. cat.,
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 24 Nov. 2001-25 Feb. 2002.
The Hague and Zwolle, 2001.

The Hague 2002

Quentin Buvelot and Hans Buijs, introduction by
Ella Reitsma. A Choice Collection: Seventeenth-Century
Dutch Paintings from the Frits Lugt Collection. Exh. cat.,
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 28 Man-30 June 2002. The
Hague and Zwolle, 2002.

The Hague 2004

Quentin Buvelot, Florike Egmond, Peter Mason,
Dante Martins, and Elly de Vries. AlbertEckhout:

Dutch Artist in Brazil. Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The
Hague, 27 Man-27 June 2004. The Hague and
Zwolle, 2004.

The Hague 2008

Quentin Buvelot. The Still Lifes of Adriaen Coorte (active
c. 1683-1707): With Oeuvre Catalogue. Catalogue for
the exhibition Ode to Coorte. Mauritshuis, The Hague,
23 Feb.-8 June 2008. The Hague and Zwolle, 2008.

The Hague 2017

Quentin Buvelot et al. Slow Food: Still Lifes of the Golden
Age. Exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 9 Mar-
25 June 2017. The Hague and Zwolle, 2017.

262

The Hague-Cambridge 1981-82

Seymour Slive Jacob van Ruisdael. Mauritshuis, The
Hague, 1 Oct. 1981-3 Jan. 1982; Fogg Art Museum,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 18 Jan.-n Apr.
1982. New York, 1981.

The Hague-San Francisco 1990-91
Ben Broos with contributions by Edwin Buijsen,
Susan Donohue Kuretsky, Walter Liedtke, Lynn
Federle Orr, Juliette Roding, and Peter C. Sutton.
Great Dutch Paintings from America. Exh. cat.,
Mauritshuis, The Hague, 28 Sept. 1990-13 Jan. 1991;
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 16 Feb-5 May
1991. The Hague and Zwolle, 1990.

The Hague-Washington 2008-9
Ariane van Suchtelen and Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr.,
with contributions by Henriette de Bruyn Kops et al.
Pride of Place: Dutch Cityscapes of the Golden Age. Exh.
cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 11 Oct. 2008-11 Jan.
2009; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC,

1 Feb-3 May 2009. Washington and Zwolle, 2008.

Hairs 1955

Marie-Louise Hairs. Les peintresflamands defleurs au
XVIIe siecle. Paris and New York, 1955.

Hairs 1985

Marie-Louise Hairs with Dominique Finet. The
Flemish Flower Painters in theXVIIth Century. Brussels,
1985.

Harwood 1983

Laurie B. Harwood. “Les Pynacker du Louvre: A
propos d’une recente acquisition.” Revue du Louvre 33,
no. 2 (Apr. 1983): 110-18.

Harwood 1988

Laurie B. Harwood. Adam Pynacker (c. 1620-16/3). Aetas
aurea 7. Doornspijk, 1988.

Haverkamp-Begemann 1973
Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann. “Review: Jan van der
Heyden 1637-1712, by Helga Wagner.” Burlington
Magazine 115 (1973): 401-2.

HdG 1908-27

See Hofstede de Groot 1908-27.

Van Heemstra 2002

Geraldine van Heemstra. “Space, Light, and
Stillness: A Description of Saenredam’s Painting
Technique.” In Los Angeles 2002, pp. 73-90.

Heijbroek and Wouthuysen 1999
J. F. Heijbroek and E. L. Wouthuysen. Portretvan een
kunsthandel: Defirma van Wisselingh en zijn compagnons,
1838-heden. Amsterdam and Zwolle, 1999.

Hengeveld 1865-70

G. J. Hengeveld. HetRundvee, zijne verschillende soorten,
rassen en veredeling. 2 vols. Haarlem, 1865-70.

Henkel 1931

M. D. Henkel. Le dessin hollandais des origines au XVIIe
siecle. Paris, 1931.

Heuer 1997

Christopher Heuer. “Picture-Curtains and the Dutch
Church Interior, c. 1650: Framing Revelation in the
Golden Age.” Chicago Art Journal 7 (1997): 15-33.

Hirschmann 1920

Otto Hirschmann. “Die Sammlung August Janssen
[deceased] (Firma J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam),

Der Kunstsammler, von Sammelwesen und Kunst-
ereignissen.” Der Cicerone 12, no. 1 (1920): 17-26,

69-77-

Hirschmann 1923

Otto Hirschmann. “Die Sammlung A. Preyer im
Haag.” Der Cicerone 15 (1923): 124-37.

Hochstrasser 1999-2000
Julie Berger Hochstrasser. “Feasting the Eye:
Painting and Reality in the Seventeenth-Century
‘Bancketje.’” In Amsterdam-Cleveland 1999-2000,
pp. 73-85.

Hochstrasser 2007

Julie Berger Hochstrasser. Still Life and Trade in the
Dutch Golden Age. New Haven, 2007.

Hoet 1752 (1976)

Gerard Hoet. Catalogus of naamlyst van schilderyen, mit
derselverpryzen. 2 vols. The Hague, 1752. Reprint.
Soest, 1976.

Hoet and Terwesten 1770 (1976)

Gerard Hoet and Pieter Terwesten. Catalogus of
naamlyst van schilderijen mit derselver pryzen. Vol. 3.

The Hague, 1770. Reprint. Soest, 1976.

Hofstede de Groot 1893

Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. “Hollandsche kunst in
Schotland.” Oud Holland 11, no. 3 (1893): part 1,

129-48; no. 4, part 2,211-28.

HdG 1907-28

Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. Beschreibendes und
kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten
hollandischenMaler des XVII Jahrhunderts. 10 vols.
Esslingen, 1907-28.

HdG 1908-27

Cornelis Hofstede de Groot. A Catalogue Raisonne of
theWorksof the Most Eminent Dutch Painters of the
Seventeenth Century: Based on the Work ofjohn Smith.
Translated and edited by Edward G. Hawke. 8 vols.
London, 1908-27.

Hollstein 1949-2010

F. W. H. Hollstein. Dutch and Flemish Etchings,
Engravings, and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700. 72 vols.
Amsterdam, 1949-2010.

Hollstein 1993-

F. W. H. Hollstein. The New Hollstein: Dutch and
Flemish Etchings, Engravings, and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700.
26 vols. to date. Roosendaal, 1993-.

Holmes 1930

Jerrold Holmes. “The Cuyps in America.” Art in

America 18 (June 1930): 164-85.

Hoogewerf 1919

G. J. Hoogewerf, ed. De twee reizen van Cosimo de’
Medici, Prins van Toscane door de Nederlanden (1667-1669):
Journalen en documenten. Werken uitg. door het
Historisch Genootschap (Utrecht), 3rd ser., no. 41.
Amsterdam, 1919.

Van Hoogstraten 1678

Samuel van Hoogstraten. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole
der schilderkonst: Anders dezichtbare werelt. Rotterdam,
1678.

Houbraken 1718-21 (1976)

Arnold Houbraken. Degroote schouburgh der
Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols. in 1.
Amsterdam, 1718-21. Reprint. Amsterdam, 1976,
with a new cumulative index.

Hunt 1990

John Dixon Hunt, ed. The Dutch Garden in the
Seventeenth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium
on the History of Landscape Architecture, no. 12,
1988. Washington, DC, 1990.

Huygens 1653

Constantijn Huygens. Vitaulium. Hofwyck. Hofstede
Vanden Heere van Zuylichem Onder Voorburgh. The
Hague, 1653.

Israel 1995

Jonathan Israel. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness,
andFall, 1477-1806. Edited by R. J. W. Evans. Oxford,
1995 -

Israel and Schwartz 2007
Jonathan Israel and Stuart Schwartz, eds. The
Expansion of Tolerance: Religion in Dutch Brazil
(1624-1654). Amsterdam, 2007.

Jameson 1844

Anna Brownell Murphy Jameson. Companion to the
Most Celebrated Private Galleries of Art in London.
London, 1844.

Jantzen 1979

Hans Jantzen. Das niederlandischeArchitekturbild. 2nd
ed. Braunschweig, 1979.

Dejong 2000

Erik A. de Jong. Nature and Art: Dutch Garden and
Landscape Architecture, 1650-1740. Philadelphia, 2000.

Dejong, Ramakers, Roodenburg et al. 2002
Jan de Jong, Bart Ramakers, Herman Roodenburg et
al., eds. Hetexotische verbeeld, 1550-1950: Boeren en verre
volken in deNederlandsche kunstpicturing the Exotic,
1550-1950: Peasants and Outlandish Peoples in
Netherlandish Art. Nederlands kunsthistorischjaarboek/
Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 2002, vol. 53.
Leiden and Zwolle, 2003.

Dejongh 1982

E. dejongh. “The Interpretation of Still-life
Paintings: Possibilities and Limits.” In Auckland-
Wellington-Christchurch 1982, pp. 26-37.

263

Kann 1907

Catalogue of the Rodolphe Kann Collection: Pictures. 2 vols.
Paris, 1907.

Kelch 1971

Jan Kelch. “Studien zu Simon de Vlieger als
Marinemaler.” PhD diss., Freie Universitat Berlin,
1971 -

Kern 2011

Ulrike Kern. “Light and Shadow, Clouds and
Sunrays: The Concept of Reddering in Netherlandish
Art.” Oud Holland 124, no. 4 (2011): 209-30.

Keukenhof 2009

Kunst, natuuren techniekop en rond kasteel Keukenhof In
Jaarboek Kasteel Keukenhof Bijdragen tot degeschiedenis
van het kasteel en het landgoed III. Hilversum, 2009.

Keyes 1982

George S. Keyes. “Hendrick Avercamp and the
Winter Landscape.” In Amsterdam-Zwolle 1982,
pp- 37 - 55 -

Keyes 1984

George S. Keyes. Esaias van de Velde; 1587-1630. With a
biographical chapter by J. G. C. A. Briels. Doornspijk,
1984.

Klijn 1987

E. M. Ch. F. Klijn. Eet- en sierlepels in Nederland tot ca.
1850. Lochem, 1987.

Kloek and Middelkoop 2012
Wouter Kloek and Norbert Middelkoop. “Gerrit
Berckheyde en de Gouden Bocht in de Herengracht.”
Amstelodamum 99 (2012): 17-33.

Knolle Online

P. Knolle. “Pronk, Cornelis.” In Grove Art

Online. Oxford University Press, accessed 3 Mar. 2015,

http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article

/grove/art/To698i5.

Koenhein 1999

A. J. M. Koenhein .Johan Wolfertvan Brederode,
1599-1655: Een Hollands edelman tussen Nassau en Oranje.
Vianen and Zutphen, 1999.

Koenhein 2001

A. J. M. Koenhein. “Salomon van Ruysdael en
Vianen.” In het land van Brederode, Jaarboek 2001, 57-62.

Korteweg and Vels Heijn 1992

Anton Korteweg, ed., with Annemaire Vels Heijn.

Een engelzingend achtereenpilaar: Gedichten over
schilderijen. The Hague, 1992.

Kracht1978

August Kracht. “Ein grower Kunstfreund aus
westfalishem Geschlecht: Graf Moritz von Brabeck
und seine Gemaldegalerie zu Soder .” Der Marker:
LandeskundlicheZeitschriftfiir den Bereich der ehem.
GrafschaftMark und dem Markischen Kreis 21, no. 4
(July-Aug. 1978): 89-95.

De Lairesse 1738 (1712)

Gerard de Lairesse. The Art of Painting, in all its
branches, methodically demonstrated by discourses and
plates, and exemplified by remarks on the paintings of the
best masters; and their Perfections and Oversights laid open
By Gerard de Lairesse. Translated by John Frederick
Fritsch. London, 1738. Originally published as Groot
schilderboek, waar in de schilderkonst in al haar deelen
grondigwerd onderweezen, 00k door redeneenirgen en
printverbeeldingen verklaard: metvoorbeelden uyt de beste
konst-stukken der oude en nieuwe puyk-skilderen bevestigd.

... Amsterdam, 1712.

Lammers 1979

Walther Lammers. Vestigia mediaevalia: Ausgew.
Aufsatzezur mittelalterl. Historiographie, Landes- u.
Kirchengeschichte. Wiesbaden, 1979.

Lammertse and Szanto 2006-7
Friso Lammertse and Mickael Szanto. “Willem Kalf,
een biographie.” In Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7,
pp. 8-23.

Laren 1959

Kunstschatten, twee Nederlandse collecties schilderijen uit
de vijftiende tot en met de zeventiende eeuw en een collectie
oud aardewerk. Exh. cat.. Singer Museum, Laren
(Gooi), 14 June-16 Aug. 1959. Laren, 1959.

Larsen 1962

Erik Larsen. Frans Post: Interprete duBresil. Amsterdam
and Rio de Janeiro, 1962.

Larsen 1982

Erik Larsen. “Supplements to the Catalogue of Frans
Post.” Burlington Magazine 124, no. 951 (June 1982):
339 - 43 -

Laurentius and Niemeijer 1980

Th. Laurentius and J. W. Niemeijer. Cornelis Ploos van
Amstel, 1726-1798, Kunstverzamelaar enprentuitgever.
Assen, 1980.

Lawrence 1991

Cynthia Miller Lawrence. Gerrit Adriaensz. Berckheyde
(1638-98): Haarlem Cityscape Painter. Doornspijk, 1991.

Lawrence 1992

Cynthia Lawrence. “Hendrick de Keyser’s
Heemskerk Monument: The Origins of the Cult and
Iconography of Dutch Naval Heroes.” Simiolus 21, no.
4(1992): 265-94.

Leiden 1945

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen die tijdens den oorlogin het
museum “DeLakenhal”bewaardzijn. Exh. cat., Stedelijk
Museum “De Lakenhal,” Leiden, Aug. 1945. Leiden,
1945 .

Leiden 1950-51

40 Winterlandschappen. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum
de Lakenhal, Leiden, 22 Dec. 1950-11 Feb. 1951.
Organized by the Leids Academisch Kunstcentrum
with the Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal. Leiden,

1951.

Leiden 1965

i7de eeuwse meesters uitNederlandsparticulier bezit: Oud
meesters uit de collectie van de Heer en Mevrouw Sidney],
van den Bergh-Bendix. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum de
Lakenhal, Leiden, 5-30 Aug. 1965. Leiden, 1965.

Leiden 1996-97

Christiaan Vogelaar with Edwin Buijsen et al .Jan van
Goyen. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum de Lakenhal,
Leiden, 12 Oct. 1996-13 Jan. 1997. Leiden, 1996.

Leymarie 1956

Jean Leymarie. Dutch Paintings. Translated by Stuart
Gilbert. Geneva and New York, 1956.

Liedtke 1971

Walter A. Liedtke. “Saenredam’s Space.” Oud Holland
86 (1971): 116-41.

Liedtke1975-76

Walter A. Liedtke. “The New Church in Haarlem
Series: Saenredam’s Sketching Style in Relation to
Perspective.” Simiolus 8 (1975-76): 145-66.

Liedtke 1982

Walter A. Liedtke. Architectural Painting in Delft: Gerard
Houckgeest, Hendrick van Vliet, Emanuel de Witte. Aetas
aurea 3. Doornspijk, 1982.

Liedtke 2000

Walter A. Liedtke. A View of Delft: Vermeer and His
Contemporaries. Zwolle, 2000.

Liedtke 2007

Walter A. Liedtke. Dutch Paintings in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. 2 vols. New York, 2007.

Lokin 2016

Danielle Lokin. “Balthasar van der Ast, eine
Lebensbeschreibung.” In Die Stilleben des Balthasar
van der Ast (1593/94-1657), ed. Sarvenaz Ayooghi, Sylvia
Bohmer, and Timo Triimper, pp. 21-43. Petersberg,
2016.

London 1819

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom,
London, 1819. London, 1819.

London 1836

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom,
London, 1836. London, 1836.

London 1856

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom,
London, 1856. London, 1856.

London 1867

Annual exhibition. Exh. cat., British Institution for
Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom,
London, 1867. London, 1867.

London 1875

Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased
Masters of the British School ... Winter Exhibition, Sixth
Year. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1875.
London, 1875.

London 1876

Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased
Masters of the British School ... Winter Exhibition, Seventh
Year. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1876.
London, 1876.

264

London 1890

Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased
Masters of the British School... Winter Exhibition,
Twenty-FirstYear. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts,
London, 1890. London, 1890.

London 1903

Exhibition of English Pictures [and] Catalogue of a
Collection ofSelected Pictures by Dutch Artists of the
Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat., Lawrie and Company,
London, 1903. London, 1903.

London 1911

Roger E. Fry and Maurice W. Brockwell, eds.
Exhibition of Old Masters in Aid of the National
Art-Collections Fund. Exh. cat., London, Grafton
Galleries, 4 Oct-28 Dec. 1911. London, 1911. London,
1911.

London 1915

A Loan Exhibition [in Aid of the British Red Cross Society] of
a Well-Known Private Collection of Pictures of the Dutch
and Early English Schools... Formed during the Last30
Years at the Galleries ofThos. Agnew & Sons. Exh. cat.,
Thos. Agnew & Sons, London, June 1915. London,

1915.

London 1927

William Patterson. The Entire Collection of the Late W. A.
Coats, Esq. Exh. cat.. Galleries of the Royal Society of
British Artists, London, Jan. 1927. London, 1927.

London 1929

Hans Schneider and W. G. Constable. Exhibition of
Dutch Art, 1450-1900. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts,
London, 4 Jam-9 Mar. 1929. London, 1929.

London 1948-49

Catalogue ofan Exhibition of Pictures by Richard Wilson
and His Circle. Exh. cat., Tate Gallery, London, 17 Nov.
1948-9 Jan. 1949. London, 1949.

London 1955

Autumn Exhibition of Dutch and Flemish Masters. Exh.
cat., Alfred Brod, London, 13 Oct-19 Nov. 1955.
London, 1955.

London 1965

1965 Spring Exhibition of Flemish, Dutch and Italian Old
Masters. Exh. cat., Leonard Koetser Ltd., London.
London, 1965.

London 1991

Laurie B. Harwood. Reflections on Italy: Adam Pynacker.
Exh. cat., Richard L. Feigen and Company, London,
1991. London, 1991.

London 1992

Adam Zamoyski and Andrzej Rottermund. Treasures
ofa Polish King: Stanislaus Augustus as Patron and
Collector. Exh. cat., Dulwich Picture Gallery, London,
13 May-26 July 1992. London, 1992.

London 2001

Axel Riiger. Vermeer and Painting in Delft. Exh. cat..

The National Gallery, London, 20 June-16 Sept. 2001.
London, 2001.

Los Angeles 1975

X: A Decade of Collecting, 1965-1975. Los Angeles County
Museum of Art. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County
Museum of Art, 8 Apn-29 June 1975. Los Angeles,
1975 -

Los Angeles 1990-91

As Many Worlds as There Are: 25th Anniversary Gifts. Exh.
cat., Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 21 Oct.
1990-6 Jan. 1991. Los Angeles, 1990.

Los Angeles 1992-93

John Walsh, Jr., and Cynthia P. Schneider. A Mirror of
Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection of Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County
Museum of Art, 22 Oct. 1992-17 Jan. 1993.2nd,
enlarged edition of Los Angeles-Boston-New York
1981-82. Los Angeles, 1992.

Los Angeles 2000

Earth, Sea and Light: Four Paintings from the Carter
Collection. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County Museum of
Art, 9 Sept.-26 Nov. 2000. No exh. cat.

Los Angeles 2002

Liesbeth M. Helmus, ed. Pieter Saenredam: The Utrecht
Work. Paintings and Drawings by the 17th-Century Master
of Perspective. Catalogue for the exhibition The Sacred
Spaces of Pieter Saenredam. The J. Paul Getty Museum,
Los Angeles, 16 Apr.-7 July 2002.2nd edition of
Utrecht 2000-2001. Los Angeles, 2002.

Los Angeles-Boston-New York 1981-82
John Walsh, Jr., and Cynthia P. Schneider. A Mirror of
Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection of Mr. and Mrs.
Edward William Carter. Exh. cat., Los Angeles County
Museum of Art, 13 Oct. 1981-3 Jan. 1982; Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, 20 Jam-14 Mar. 1982; The Metro¬
politan Museum of Art, New York, 7 Apr.-2o June
1982. Los Angeles, 1981.

Los Angeles-Philadelphia-London 2005-6

Seymour Slive. Jacob van Ruisdael: Master ofLandscape.
Exh. cat., Los Angeles County Museum of Art,

26 June-18 Sept. 2005; Philadelphia Museum of Art,
23 Oct. 2005-5 Feb. 2006; Royal Academy of Arts,
London, 25 Feb-4 June 2006. London and New
Haven, 2005.

Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974

D. F. Lunsingh Scheurleer. Chinese Export Porcelain/
Chine de commande. New York, 1974.

Luxembourg-Liege 1957

P. N. H. Domela Niewenhuis. Nature mortes
hollandaises, 1550-1950. Exh. cat., Musee de l’Etat,
Luxembourg, 16 Feb.-io Mar. 1957; Musee des
Beaux-Arts, Liege, 16 Man-14 Apr. 1957. Liege, 1957.

Madrid 1994-95

Peter C. Sutton with John Laughman. The Golden Age
of Dutch Landscape Painting/El Siglo de Oro delpaisaje
holandes. Exh. cat., Fundacion Coleccion Thyssen-
Bornemisza, Madrid, Oct. 1994-Feb. 1995. Madrid,
1994.

Madrid 2008-9

Liesbeth M. Helmus and Gerdien Wuestman.
Saenredam: Lafachada occidental de la Iglesia de Santa
Maria de Utrecht. Exh. cat., Museo Thyssen-
Bornemisza, Madrid, 11 Nov. 2008-15 Feb. 2009.
Madrid, 2008.

Van Mander 1604

Karel van Mander. Den Grondt derEdel VrySchilder-
Const. Haarlem, 1604. Facsimile edition and
translation with commentary by Hessel Miedema.

2 vols. Utrecht, 1973.

Mandle 1979

Roger Mandle. Review of “Adriaen Coorte, a Unique
Late Seventeenth Century Dutch Still-Life Painter”
by L. Bol. Burlington Magazine 121 (May 1979): 326-27.

Manke 1963

Ilse Manke. Emanuel de Witte, 1617-1692. Amsterdam,
1963.

Marandel 2004

J. Patrice Marandel. “Los Angeles County Museum
of Art: A Gift of Dutch Paintings.” World of Antiques &
Art 66 (2004).

[Marandel] 2005

[J. Patrice Marandel]. “Master of Landscape.” At
LACMA, Museum Members’Magazine (July-Aug. 2005):
6-7.

Marandel and Walsh et al. 2019
J. Patrice Marandel and Amy Walsh, with additional
contributions by Ellen Dooley and Arthur K.
Wheelock, Jr. Gifts of European Art from TheAhmanson
Foundation. Vol. 3, Dutch Painting, Flemish Painting,
Spanish Painting and Sculpture, Los Angeles, 2019.

Marcus-de Groot 2003

Yvette Marcus-de Groot. Kunsthistorische vrouwen van
weleer: De eerste generatie in Nederland voor 1921.
Hilversum, 2003.

Martin 1935-36

Wilhelm Martin. De Hollandische schilderkunst in de
zeventiende eeuw. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1935-36.

Meijer 1999

Fred G. Meijer. “Coorte (Corte), Adriaen.” In Saur
1992-, vol. 21, pp. 93-94.

Meyers 2011

Amy R. W. Meyers, ed., with the assistance of Lisa L.
Ford. Knowing Nature: Art and Science in Philadelphia,
1740-1840. New Haven, 2011.

Michalski 2002

Sergiusz Michalski. “Rembrandt and the Church
Interiors of the Delft School.” Artibus & historiae 23,
no. 46 (2002): 183-93.

Middelkoop with Reichwein and Van Gent 2008
Norbert E. Middelkoop, with Gusta Reichwein and
Judith van Gent. De OudeMeestersvan destad
Amsterdam: Schilderijen tot 1800. Amsterdams
Historisch Museum. Amsterdam, 2008.

Milan 1954

Luigi Salerno, with introduction by A. B. de Vries.
Mostra dipittura olandese del seicento. Exh. cat., Palazzo
Reale, Milan, 25 Feb.-25 Apr. 1954. Milan, 1954.

Minneapolis-Toledo-Los Angeles 1990-91

George S. Keyes, ed . Mirror ofEmpire: Dutch Marine Art
of the Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat., Minneapolis
Institute of Arts, 23 Sept.-30 Dec. 1990; Toledo
Museum of Art, 27 Jam-28 Apr. 1991; Los Angeles
County Museum of Art, 30 May-i Sept. 1991.
Minneapolis, 1990.

Mireur 1911-12 (2001)

Hippolyte Mireur. Dictionnaire des ventes d’artfaites en
France et a Vetranger pendant lesXVIIIme &XIXme siecles.
... 7 vols. Paris, 1911-12. Reprint. Saint-Romain-au-
Mont-d’Or, 2001.

265

Mitchell 1973

Peter Mitchell. European Flower Painters. London, 1973.
Moes 1911

E[rnst] W[ilhelm] Moes. “De inventaris van den
inboedel nagelaten door Dirck Alewijn in 1637.”
JaarboekderVereenigingAmstelodamum 9 (1911): 31-54.

Molengraaff-Gerlings ca. 1928
Cornelia Molengraaff-Gerlings. Johan Maurits van
Nassau en de korte bloeitijd van Hollandsch-Brazilie,
1636-1644. The Hague, ca. 1928.

Montias 1987

John Michael Montias. “Vermeer’s Clients and
Patrons.” Art Bulletin 69, no. 1 (Mar. 1987): 68-76.

Montias 1989

John Michael Montias. Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web
of Social History. Princeton, 1989.

Montias 1990

John Michael Montias. “The Importance of
Economic Factors on Style.” Dezeventiende eeuw 6
(1990): 49 - 57 -

Montreal 1990

Frederik J. Duparc and Linda L. Graif. Italian
Recollections: Dutch Painters of the Golden Age. Exh. cat.,
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 8 June-22 July 1990.
Montreal, 1990.

Du Mortier 2009-10

Bianca M. du Mortier. “Aspects of Costume: A
Showcase of Early 17th-Century Dress.” In
Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10, pp. 141-63.

Muchnic 2015

Suzanne Muchnic. LACMA So Far: Portrait of a Museum
in the Making. San Marino, CA, 2015.

Miinster-Baden-Baden 1979-80
Gerhard Langemeyer and Hans-Albert Peters.
Stilleben inEuropa. Exh. cat., Westfalisches
Landesmuseum fur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte
Munster, 25 Nov. 1979-24 Feb. 1980; Staatliche
Kunsthalle Baden-Baden, 15 Mar-15 June 1980.
Munster, 1979.

Murray and Groen 1994

Sarah Murray and Karin Groen. “Four Early Dutch
Flower Paintings Examined with Reference to
Crispin de Passe’s ‘Den Blom-Hof.’” Hamilton Kerr
Institute Bulletin, no. 2 (1994): 7-20.

Naumann 1982

Otto Naumann. “Quiet Beauty: Dutch Paintings
from the Carter Collection.” Tableau 4, no. 5 (1982):
471 - 75 .

Newmeister 2010

Mirjam Newmeister. Hollandsche Gemalde in Stadel
Museum, 1550-1800. Vol. 3, Kiinstler geboren nach 1630.
Frankurt am Main, 2010.

New York 1925

Loan Exhibition of Dutch Masters of the Seventeenth
Century. Knoedler Galleries, New York, 16-28 Nov.
1925. New York, 1925.

New York 1939

George Henry McCall, William R. Valentiner, ed.
Masterpieces of Art: Catalogue of European Paintings and
Sculpture from 1300-1800. Exh. cat.. New York’s World
Fair, New York, May-Oct. 1939. New York, 1939.

New York 1968

Exhibition of Dutch and Flemish Paintings. Exh. cat.,

H. Schickman Gallery, New York, Nov. 1968. New
York, 1968.

New York 1974-75

Penelope Hunter and Gerald G. Stiebel. The Grand
Gallery at the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Sixth
International Exhibition Presented by C. I. N. O.A., La
Confederation internationale des negociants en oeuvres
d’art/The International Confederation of Dealers in Works
of Art. Exh. cat.. The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, 19 Oct. 1974-5 Jan. 1975. New York, 1975.

New York 1985

Ann Sutherland Harris with Marcel Roethlisberger
and Kahren Hellerstedt. Landscape Painting in Rome,
1595-1675. Exh. cat., Richard L. Feigen & Co., New
York, 30 Jan-23 Mar. 1985. New York, 1985.

New York 1985a

Walter A. Liedtke. The Golden Ambiance: Dutch
Landscape Painting in the Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat.,
Minskoff Cultural Center, New York, 17-26 May
1985. New York, 1985.

New York-London 2001

Walter A. Liedtke with Michiel C. Plomp, Axel Riiger,
et al. Vermeer and the Delft School. Exh. cat.. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 8 Man-
27 May 2001; The National Gallery, London,

20 June-16 Sept. 2001. New York, 2001.

New York-Toledo-Toronto 1954-55

Dutch Painting, the Golden Age: An Exhibition of Dutch
Pictures of the Seventeenth Century. ... Exh. cat.. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 25 Oct.-
9 Dec. 1954; Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio, 2 Jan-
13 Feb. 1955; Art Gallery of Toronto, ON, 18 Feb.-
7 Mar. 1955. Haarlem, 1954.

Niemeyer 1959

J. W. Niemeyer. “Het topografisch element in enkele
riviergezichten van Salomon van Ruysdael nader
beschouwd.” Oud Holland 74 (1959): 51-56.

Nieuwenhuizen 1974

Kees van Nieuwenhuizen, ed. De vroegstefotos van
Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 1974.

Nijstad 1990

Saam Nijstad. Van antiquair tot kunsthandelaar.
Abcoude, 1990.

Noach 1939

Arnoldus Noach. De Oude Kerk te Amsterdam: Biografie
van eengebouw. Amsterdam, 1939.

North 1979

J. D. North. “Georg Markgraf, an Astronomer in the
New World.” In Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and
Whitehead 1979, pp. 394-423.

Niirnberg 1909

Katalog der Gemalde-Sammlung des Germanischen
Nationalmuseums in Niirnberg. 4th ed. Niirnberg, 1909.

Oxford 1950

Ashmolean Museum. Catalogue of the Collection of
Dutch and Flemish Still-Life Pictures Bequested by Daisy
Linda Ward. Introduction by J. G. van Gelder. Oxford,
1950.

Oxford 2003

Fred G. Meijer. The Collection of Dutch andFlemish
Still-Life Paintings Bequeathed by Daisy Linda Ward:
Catalogue of the Collection ofPaintings. Ashmolean
Museum. Oxford and Zwolle, 2003.

Paintings Looted from Holland 1946-48
Paintings Looted from Holland Returned through the
Efforts of the United States Armed Forces. Exh. cat., Ann
Arbor, Baltimore, Buffalo, Kansas City, New Haven,
New York City, Newark, Northampton, Philadelphia,
Princeton, San Francisco, Washington, DC,
Williamstown, MA, Worcester, 7 Dec. 1946-1 Jan.
1948. New York, 1946.

Papavero and Teixeira 2000
Nelson Papavero and Dante Martins Teixeira.
CuthbertPudsey: Didrio de uma estada no Brasil. Vol. 3 of
Cristina Ferrao and Jose Monteiro Soares, Brasil
Holandes. Petropolis, Brazil, 2000.

Paris 1936-37

Charles Sterling. Rubens et son temps. Exh. cat., Musee
de l’Orangerie, Paris, Nov. 1936-Jan. 1937. Paris, 1936.

Paris 1950

Chefs d’oeuvre des collectionsparisiens. Exh. cat., Musee
Carnavalet, Paris, Nov.-Dee. 1950. Paris, 1950.

Paris 1950-51

Le pay sage hollandaisauXVIIesiecle. Exh. cat.,
Orangerie des Tuileries, Paris, 25 Nov. 1950-18 Feb.
1951. Paris, 1950.

Paris 1952

Charles Sterling. La nature morte de Vantiquite d nos
jours. Exh. cat., Musee de l’Orangerie, Paris,
Apr.-June 1952. Paris, 1952.

Paris i960

Anne Wertheimer. La nature morte et son inspiration....
Exh. cat., Galerie Andre Weil, Paris, 19 Apr.-i6 May
i960. Paris, i960.

Paris 1972

I. Q. van Regteren Altena. Cent dessins du Musee Teyler
Haarlem: Le exposition du Cabinet des dessins. Exh.
cat., Musee du Louvre, Paris, 19 Oct-31 Dec. 1972.
Paris, 1972.

266

Parival 1728 (1651)

Jean-Nicolas de Parival. Les delices de la Hollande:
Contenant une description exacte dupais, des moeurs & des
coutumes des habitans. Avec un abrege historique depuis
1 ’etablissement de la Republiquejusqu’au de Id de la Paix
d’Utrecht. 2 vols. Leiden, 1651. Revised edition.
Amsterdam, 1728.

Van de Passe 1614

Crispijn van de Passe. HortusFloridus. Utrecht, 1614.
Paviere 1962-64

Sydney H. Paviere. A Dictionary of Flower, Fruit, and
Still Life Painters. 3 vols. Leigh-on-Sea, 1962-64.

Pavord1999

Anna Pavord. The Tulip. New York and London, 1999.
Peeters 1991

Jan Peeters. “Een onbekende tekening van Gerrit
Berckheyde in de atlas Van Eck.” Bulletin Koninklijk
OudheidkundigGenootschap (1991): 82-91.

Van Pelt 1981

Robert van Pelt. “Man and Cosmos in Huygens’
Hofwijck.” Art History 4, no. 2 (June 1981): 150-73.

Pennisi 2007

Meghan Siobhan Wilson Pennisi. “The Flower
Still-Life Painting of Ambrosius Bosschaert the
Elder in Middelburg, ca. 1600-20.” PhD diss..
Northwestern University, 2007.

Peronnet and Fredericksen 1998
Benjamin Peronnet and Burton B. Fredericksen, eds.
Repertoire des tableaux en France au XIXe siecle. Los
Angeles, 1998.

Philadelphia 1963

Henry Clifford. A World of Flowers: Paintings and Prints.
Exh. cat., Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2 May-
9 June 1963, Philadelphia Museum Bulletin 58, no. 277
(Spring 1963).

Pietrangeli 1961

Carlo Pietrangeli. VillaPaolina. Rome, 1961.

Pijl 2006-7

Luuk Pijl. “The Paintings of Nicolaes Berchem:
Influences and Development.” In Haarlem-Ziirich-
Schwerin 2006-7, pp- 73-93.

Plietzsch i960

Eduard Plietzsch. Hollandsche undflamischeMaler des
XVII]ahrh. Leipzig, i960.

Pliny 1961-68

Pliny, Natural History with an English Translation in Ten
Volumes. 10 vols. Translated by H. Rackham.
Cambridge, MA, and London, 1961-68.

Plomp 1997

Michiel C. Plomp. DutchDrawingsin the TeylerMuseum.
Vol. 2. Haarlem, Ghent, and Doornspijk, 1997.

Ploos van Amstel i82i-[27?]

Cornelis Ploos van Amstel. Collection limitations de
dessins d’apres les principaux maitres hollandais et
flamandsjcommencee par Ploos van Amstel, continuee et
portee au nombre de cent morceaux, avec des renseignements
historiques et detailles sur ces maitres et sur leurs ouvrages;
precedes d’un discours sur Vetat ancien et moderne des arts
dans les PaysBas. Par C.Jos. Amsterdam and London,

l821-[27?].

Priem 1997

Ruud Priem. “The 'most excellent collection’ of
Lucretia Johanna van Winter: The Years 1809-22.
Catalogue of the Works Purchased. Appendices.”
Simiolus, Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 25,
no. 2/3 (1997): 103-234.

Rademaker 1725

Abraham Rademaker. Kabinetvan Nederlandsche
outheden engezichten. ... 2 vols. in 1. Amsterdam, 1725.

Ramakers 2002

Bart Ramakers. “Kinderen van Saturnus: Afstand en
nabijheid in de beedende kunst en het toneel van de
zestiende eeuw.” In De Jong, Ramakers, Roodenburg
et al. 2002, pp. 13-51.

Ramdohr 1792

Friedrich Wilhelm Basilius von Ramdohr. Beschrei-
bung der Gemalde-Galerie des Freiherrn von Brabek zu
Hildesheim _Hanover, 1792.

Von Reber and Bayersdorfer 1889-1900
Franz von Reber and Adolph Bayersdorfer, eds.
KlassischerBilderschatz. 12 vols. Munich, 1889-1900.

Reithmeier 2010

Irene Reithmeier. Johann Konrad von Gemmingen:
Furstbischof von Eichstatt (1593/95-1612). PhD diss.,
Universitat Miinchen, 2009. Regensburg, 2010.

Rickey 1981

Carrie Rickey. “Art Reviews: In Dutch.” Art & Auction
4, no. 4 (Dec. 1981): 26.

Rinaldi 1989

Maura Rinaldi. Kraak Porcelain: A Moment in the History
of Trade. London, 1989.

Rio de Janeiro 1942

Exposi^do Frans Post. Exh. cat., Museu Nacional de
Belas Artes, Rio de Janeiro, 1942. Rio de Janeiro, 1942.

M. Robinson 1973-74

Michael S. Robinson. Van de Velde Drawings: A
Catalogue of Drawings in the National Maritime Museum
Made by the Elder and the Younger Willem van de Velde.

2 vols. Cambridge, 1973-74.

M. Robinson 1990

Michael S. Robinson. Van de Velde: A Catalogue of the
Paintings of the Elder and Younger Willem van de Velde.

2 vols. Greenwich, 1990.

Roland Michel et al. 2002
Marianne Roland Michel, Peter C. Sutton, Carolyn
Rose Rebbert, and Cynthia A. Drayton. The Floral Art
ofPierre-JosephRedoute. London, 2002.

Rome 1954

Luigi Salerno. Mostra dipittura olandese del seicento.
Exh. cat., Palazzo delle Esposizione, Rome, 4 Jan-
14 Feb. 1954. Milan, 1954.

J. Rosenberg 1928

Jacob Rosenberg .Jacob Ruisdael. Berlin, 1928.

J. Rosenberg, Slive, and Ter Kuile 1966
Jacob Rosenberg, Seymour Slive, and E. H. ter Kuile.
Dutch Art and Architecture, 1600-1800. Harmondsworth,
1966.

Rothlisberger 1961

Marcel Rothlisberger. Claude Lorrain: The Paintings.

2 vols. New Haven, 1961.

Rotterdam 1938

D. Hannema. Meesterwerken uitvier eeuwen, 1400-1800:
Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen en teekeningen uit
particuliere verzamelingen in Nederland bijeengebracht
gedurende de veertigjarige regeering van H. M. Koningin
Wilhelmina. Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam, 25 June-15 Oct. 1938.
Rotterdam, 1938.

Rotterdam 1939-40

Tentoonstellingvan schilderijen, beeldhouwwerken en
teekeningen uit particuliere verzamelingen in Nederland.
Exh. cat.. Museum Boymans [Museum Boijmans
Van Beuningen], Rotterdam, 23 Dec. 1939-29 Jan.
1940. Rotterdam, 1940.

Rotterdam 1945-46

Het Nederlandsche zee- en riviergezichtin deXVIIde eeuw.
Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam, 1945-46.

Rotterdam 1951

Tentoonstellingvan oude schilderijen collectie C. V.
Kunsthandel P. deBoer. Exh. cat., Kunstkring,
Rotterdam, 1951. Rotterdam, 1951.

Rotterdam 1955

Kunstschatten uitNederlandse verzamelingen. Exh. cat..
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam,

19 June-25 Sept. 1955. Rotterdam, 1955.

Rotterdam 1991

Jeroen Giltaij and Guido Jansen. Perspectiven:
Saenredam en de architechtuurschilders van de l/e eeuw/
Perspectives: Saenredam and the Architectural Painters of
the 17th Century. Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam, 15 Sept-24 Nov. 1991.
Rotterdam, 1991.

Rotterdam-Aachen 2006-7
Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer, and Sylvia
Bohmer, eds. Gemaltes Licht: Die Stilleben von Willem
Kalf, 1619-1693. Exh. cat.. Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam, 25 Nov. 2006-18 Feb. 2007;
Suermondt-Lud wig-Museum, Aachen, 8 Mar.-

3 June 2007. Munich, 2007.

Rotterdam-Berlin 1996-97

Jeroen Giltaij and Jan Kelch. Praise of Ships and the Sea:
The Dutch Marine Painters ofthe 17th Century. Exh. cat..
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam,

21 Dec. 1996-23 Feb. 1997; Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, Gemaldegalerie im Bodemuseum, 21 Man-
25 May 1997. Rotterdam, 1996.

267

Russell 1975

Margarita Russell Jaw van de Cappelle, 1624/6-1679.
Leigh-on-Sea, 1975.

Russell 1982

Russell, John. "Gallery View: Spotlight on
17th-Century Dutch Painters, Boston.” New York
Times, 7 Feb. 1982, A29.

Russell 1982a

Russell, John. "Met Opens Jewel Box of Old Masters.”
New York Times, 16 Apr. 1982, Ci.

Russell 1983

Margarita Russell. Visions of the Sea: Hendrick C. Vroom
and the Origins of Dutch Marine Tainting. Leiden, 1983.

Russell 1990

Russell, John. “Art View: Gifts That Can Change the
Climate of a Museum.” New York Times, 3 June 1990,
H29.

Ruurs 1983

Rob Ruurs. "'Even if it is not architecture’:
Perspective Drawings by Simon de Vlieger and
Willem van de Velde the Younger.” Simiolus 13, no. 3/4
(1983): 189-200.

Ruurs 1987

Rob Ruurs. Saenredam: The Art of Perspective.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1987.

Salem-San Francisco-Houston 2011-12
Frederik J. Duparc, with Femke Diercks, Reinier
Baarsen, and Loek van Aalst. Golden: Dutch and
Flemish Masters from the Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo
Collection. Exh. cat., Peabody Essex Museum, Salem,
MA, 26 Feb.-i9 June 2011; Fine Arts Museums of San
Francisco, 9 July-2 Oct. 2011; Museum of Fine Arts,
Houston, 13 Nov. 2011-12 Feb. 2012. Salem, MA, 2011.

San Francisco-Baltimore-London 1997-98
Joaneath Spicer, ed., with Lynn Federle Orr. Masters
of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age.
Exh. cat.. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco,

13 Sept.-30 Nov. 1997; Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore,
11 Jan-5 Apr. 1998; The National Gallery, London,

6 May-2 Aug. 1998. San Francisco, 1997.

San Francisco-Toledo-Boston 1966-67

The Age of Rembrandt: An Exhibition ofPaintingsofthe
Seventeenth Century. Exh. cat.. Fine Arts Museums of
San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of
Honor; Toledo Museum of Art; Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston. New York, 1966.

San Marino 1995

Edward J. Nygren. In Celebration of Collecting: Selected
Works from the Collections ofFriends of the Huntington.
Exh. cat., Huntington Library, San Marino, CA,

4 June-27 Aug. 1995. San Marino, CA, 1995.

Sandrart 1675-79 (1925)

Joachim von Sandrart. Teutsche Academie deredlen Bau-,
Bild- undMahlerey-Kiinste. 2 vols. Nuremberg and
Frankfurt am Main, 1675-79. Edited by A. R. Peltzer.
4 vols. Munich, 1925.

Sawri 992 -

Saur Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon: Die Bildenden Kiinstler
allerZeiten und Volker. 85 vols. to date. Edited by
Gunter Meissner. Leipzig and Munich, 1992-.

Schaar1958

Eckhard Schaar. "Studien zu Nicolaes Berchem.”
PhD diss., Universitat zu Koln, 1958.

Schaar1968

Eckhard Schaar. NiederlandischeHandzeichnungen,
1500-1800, aus dem Kunstmuseum Diisseldorf Exh. cat.,
Stadtische Kunsthalle, Diisseldorf, 10 Mar-5 May
1968. Diisseldorf, 1968.

Schama 1987

Simon Schama. The Embarrassment of Riches: An
Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New
York, 1987.

Schapelhouman 2009-10

Marijn Schapelhouman. "The Drawings: Reflections
on an Oeuvre.” In Amsterdam-Washington 2009-10,

pp. 85-117-

Schiedam 1952-53

Schilderijen der Nederlandse- en Franse school uit de
verzamelingvanB. de Geus van den Heuvel, Amsterdam.
2nd part. Exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum Schiedam,

20 Dec. 1952-18 Jan. 1953. Schiedam, 1952.

Schiedam 1997

K. J. P. Jeurgens and D. A. Wind. Compact disk
accompanying exhibition De Gouden Eeuw van
Schiedam, 1698-1795. Stedelijk Museum Schiedam,
1997. Schiedam, 1997.

Schoemaker 2007

Laurens Schoemaker with the assistance of Henk
Deys. Tegen de helling van de Heuvelrug: Rhenen in oude
tekeningen, 1600-1900. Historische Heuvelrug Reeks
13. Utrecht, 2007.

Scholten 2003

Frits Scholten. Sumptuous Memories: Studies in
Seventeenth-Century Dutch Tomb Sculpture. Studies in
Netherlandish Art and Cultural History, vol. 5.
Zwolle, 2003.

Schulz 2002

Wolfgang Schulz. Aertvan derNeer. Translated by
Kristin Lohse Belkin. Aetas aurea 18. Doornspijk,
2002.

Schwartz 1992

Stuart B. Schwartz. Slaves, Peasants and Rebels:
Reconsidering Brazilian Slavery, Blacks in the New World.
Chicago, 1992.

Schwartz and Bok 1989

Gary Schwartz and Marten Jan Bok. Pieter Saenredam:
The Painter and His Time. Complete edition. New York,
1989.

B. Schwarz 2004

Birgit Schwarz. Hitlers Museum: Die Fotoalben
Gemaldegalerie Linz. Dokumente zum Fuhrermuseum.
Vienna, 2004.

H. Schwarz 1966

Heinrich Schwarz. "Vermeer and the Camera
Obscura .” Pantheon 24 (1966): 170-80.

Sedelmeyer 1898

Charles Sedelmeyer. Illustrated Catalogue of 300
Paintings by Old Masters of the Dutch, Flemish, Italian,
French, and English Schools, Being Some of the Principal
Pictures Which Have at Various Times Formed Part of the
Sedelmeyer Gallery. Paris, 1898.

Seelig 2006

Gero Seelig. “The Reception of Berchem’s Painting
in Eighteenth-Century France.” In Haarlem-Ziirich-
Schwerin 2006-7, PP- 59-69.

Segal 1984

Sam Segal. "Still-life Painting in Middelburg.” In
Amsterdam 1984, pp. 25-41.

Segal 1990

Sam Segal. Flowers and Nature: Netherlandish Flower
Painting ofFour Centuries. Amstelveen, 1990.

Sellink 2007

Manfred Sellink. Bruegel: The Complete Paintings,
Drawings and Prints. Ghent and New York, 2007.

Shore 1980

Leslie Shore, ed. Small Paintings of the Masters:
Masterpieces Reproduced in Actual Size. 3 vols. Redding,
CT, 1980.

Slive 1987

Seymour Slive. "Dutch Pictures in the Collection of
Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (1690-1756).”
Simiolus 17, no. 2/3 (1987): 169-90.

Slive 1995

Seymour Slive. Dutch Painting, 1600-1800. Revised and
expanded sections devoted to painting in Rosenberg,
Slive, and Ter Kuile 1966. New Haven, 1995.

Slive 2001

Seymour Slive .Jacob van Ruisdael: A Complete Catalogue
of His Paintings, Drawings, andEtchings. New Haven,
2001.

Sluijter 1999 (2009)

Eric Jan Sluijter. "Over Brabantse vodden,
economische concurrence, artistieke wedijver en de
groei van de markt voor schilderijen in de eerste
decennia van de zeventiende eeuw.” In Kunstvoorde
markt/Art for the Market, ed. R. Falkenburg, J. de Jong,
D. Meijers et al., pp. 112-43. Nederlands kunsthistorisch
jaarboek 1999, vol. 50. Zwolle, 2000. English
translation, "On Brabant Rubbish, Economic
Competition, Artistic Rivalry, and the Growth of the
Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the
Seventeenth Century Journal of Historians of
Netherlandish Art 1, no. 2 (2009), http://jhna.org
/index.php/.

Sluijter 2013

Eric Jan Sluijter. "'Dien grooten Raphel in het
zeeschilderen!’: Over de waardering voor Jan
Porcellis’ sobere kunst door eigentijdse kenners.” In
Liber Amicorum Marijke deKinkelder: Collegial bijdragen
over landschappen, marines en architectuur, ed. Charles
Dumas, Jan Kosten, Eric Jan Sluijter, and Nicolette C.
Sluijter-Seijffert, pp. 343-58. The Hague, 2013.

268

Smith 1829-42

John Smith. A Catalogue Raisonne of the Works of the
Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French Painters. 9 vols.
London, 1829-42.

R. Smith 1938

Robert C. Smith, Jr. “The Brazilian Landscapes of
Frans Post .” Art Quarterly 1 (1938): 238-67.

Sousa-Leao 1937

Joaquim de Sousa-Leao. Frans Post, seus quadros
brasileiros. Rio de Janeiro, 1937.

Sousa-Leao 1948

Joaquim de Sousa-Leao. Frans Post. Rio de Janeiro,
1948.

Sousa-Leao 1973

Joaquim de Sousa-Leao. Frans Post, 1612-1680.
Amsterdam, 1973.

Souto Maior 1919

Pedro Souto Maior. “A arte Holandesa no Brasil.”
Revista dolnstituto historico egeogrdfico brasileiro 83
(1919): 106-33.

Spliethoff and Hoogsteder 2000
M. Spliethoff and W. J. Hoogsteder. “Rachel Ruysch:
Amsterdam’s Pallas and Minerva of the Amsterdam
IJ: De verstilde bloemenpracht van een beroemd-
schilderes.” Hoogsteder Journal 7 (2000): 23-27.

Spriggs 1967

A. I. Spriggs. “Oriental Porcelain in Western
Paintings, 1450-1700.” Transactions of the Oriental
Ceramic Society 36 (1964-66; published 1967): 73-86.

Sprint 2001

Marika Sprint. “Pigments and Color Change in the
Paintings of Aelbert Cuyp.” In Washington-London-
Amsterdam 2001-2, pp. 64-73.

Stechow 1938

Wolfgang Stechow. Salomon van Ruysdael: Fine
Einfuhrung in seine Kunst, mit kritischem Katalog der
Gemalde. Berlin, 1938.

Stechow 1959

Wolfgang Stechow. “The Early Years of Hobbema.”
Art Quarterly (Detroit Institute of Arts) 22 (1959): 3-18.

Stechow 1968

Wolfgang Stechow. Dutch Landscape Painting of the
Seventeenth Century. National Gallery of Art, Kress
Foundation Studies in the History of European Art.
2nd ed. London and New York, 1968.

Stechow 1972

Wolfgang Stechow. “A Church Interior by Emanuel
de Witte.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 59
(1972): 228-34.

Stechow 1975

Wolfgang Stechow. Salomon van Ruysdael: Fine
Einfiihrung in seine Kunst mit kritischem Katalog der
Gemalde. 2nd, enlarged and revised edition. Berlin,
1975 .

Sterling 1959

Charles Sterling. Still Life Painting from Antiquity to the
Present Time. Revised edition. Paris and New York,
1959 .

Van Strien 1993

C. D. van Strien. British Travellers in Holland during the
Stuart Period.... Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1993.

Van Strien 1998

Kees [C. D.] van Strien. Touring the Low Countries:
Accounts of British Travellers, 1660-1720. Amsterdam,
1998.

Van Suchtelen with Van der Ploeg 2001-2
Ariane van Suchtelen with Peter van der Ploeg. “An
Introduction.” In The Hague 2001-2, pp. 11-15.

Sumowski 1983

Werner Sumowski. Gemalde derRembrandt-Schiilerin
vierBanden undeinem Supplement-Band. 6 vols. Landau,
1983.

Sutton 1986

Peter C. Sutton. A Guide to Dutch Art in America.
Washington, DC, and Grand Rapids, MI, 1986.

Sutton 1990-91

Peter C. Sutton. “Recent Patterns of Public and
Private Collecting of Dutch Art.” In The Hague-San
Francisco 1990-91, pp. 104-19.

Sutton 1992

Peter C. Sutton. Dutch & Flemish Seventeenth-Century
Paintings: The Harold Samuel Collection. Cambridge,
New York, London, and Alexandria, VA, 1992.

Sweerts 1976 (1612)

Early Floral Engravings. All 110 plates from the 1612
“Florilegium” by Emanuel Sweerts. Edited by E. F. Bleiler.
New York, 1976.

Takayama ca. 1996

Hiroshi Takayama. “The Castellophiliacs”: A Historical
Essay on Those Who Loved Architectures on the Paper.
Tokyo, ca. 1996.

Tauch 1991

M. Tauch. “Perspektives.” Die Weltkunst6i (1991):

3275.

Taylor 1995

Paul Taylor. Dutch Flower Painting, 1600-1720. New
Haven, 1995.

Taylor 2008

Paul Taylor. “Boekbespreking/Book Review: De
verleidingvan Flora/The Temptations ofFlora:Jan van
Huy sum, 1682-1749.” Oud Holland 121 (2008): 256-62.

Tel Aviv 1959

Holland’s Golden Age: Paintings, Drawings, Silver of the
XVII Century, Lent by Dutch Museums and Private
Collectors. Exh. cat., Tel Aviv Museum, 18 Feb-7 Apr.
1959. Tel Aviv Museum, 1959.

Terwesten 1770 (1976)

Pieter Terwesten, ed. Catalogus of naamlystvan
schilderyen ... Prins van Orange en Nassau. Vol. 3,
1752-1758. The Hague, 1770. Reprint. Soest, 1976.

Van Thiel 1968

P. J. J. van Thiel. “'Philips Koninck, Vergezicht met
hutten aan de weg.’” OpenbaarKunstbezit 12, no. 10
(1968).

Thieme-Becker 1907-50

Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker . AllgemeinesLexikon
derbildendenKiinstlervon derAntike biszurGegenwart.
37 vols. Leipzig, 1907-50.

Trautscholdt 1947

Eduard Trautscholdt. “Emanuel de Witte.” In
Thieme-Becker 1907-50, vol. 36 (1947), pp. 121-27.

Utrecht 1946

Herwonnen Kunstbezit, Keuze-tentoonstellingvan uit
Duitschland teruggevoerde Nederlandsche kunstschatten.
Exh. cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 22 June-
22 Sept. 1946. Utrecht, 1946.

Utrecht 1953

Nederlandse architectuurschilders. Exh. cat., Centraal
Museum, Utrecht, 28 June-28 Sept. 1953. In Dutch,
English, and German. Utrecht, 1953.

Utrecht 1961

P. T. A. Swillens et al. Catalogue raisonne van de werken
van Pieter Jansz. Saenredam. Catalogue for the
exhibition Pieter Jansz. Saenredam: Centraal Museum.
Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 15 SepL-19 Nov. 1961.
Utrecht, 1961. Also English edition. Catalogue of the
Works of Pieter Jansz. Saenredam. Utrecht, 1961.

Utrecht 1986

Protestants kerkinterieur, i6de-i9de eeuw. Exh. cat.,
Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, 1986.
Utrecht, 1986.

Utrecht 2000-2001

Liesbeth M. Helmus, ed. Pieter Saenredam: The Utrecht
Work. Paintings and Drawings by the 17th-Century Master
of Perspective. Exh. cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht,

4 Nov. 2000-4 Feb. 2001. Utrecht, 2000.

Valentiner 1922

Wilhelm Valentiner. “Dutch Loan Exhibition in
Detroit Museum.” Art News 28 (19 Oct. 1929): 3,6-10,
19-21.

Vanhaelen 2005

Angela Vanhaelen. “Iconoclasm and the Creation of
Images in Emanuel de Witte’s Old Church in
Amsterdam.” Art Bulletin 27 (June 2005): 249-64.

Venema 1986

Adriaan Venema. Kunsthandel in Nederland, 1940-1945.
Amsterdam, 1986.

Vienna-Essen 2002

Arnout Balis et al. Flamische Stilleben, 1550-1680. Exh.
cat., Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 18 Mar-
21 July 2002; Kultur Stiftung Ruhr Essen, Villa
Hugel, 1 Sept.-8 Dec. 2002. Lingen and Essen, 2002.

269

Vier eeuwen Herengracht 1976
Via eeuwen Herengracht: geveltekeningen van alle huizen
aan degracht, twee historische overzichten en de
beschrijvingvan elkpand metzijn eigenaars en bewoners.
Amsterdam, 1976.

Visscher 1614

Roemer Visscher. Sinnepoppen. Amsterdam, 1614.
Vondel 1929-34

Joostvan den Vondel: De Volledigewerken vanjoostvan den
Vondel. Edited by Hendrick C. Diferee with an
introduction by Albert Verwey. 7 vols. Utrecht,
1929-34.

Vorenkamp 1933

A. R A. Vorenkamp. “Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis
van het Hollandsch stilleven in de zeventiende
eeuw.” PhD diss., Leiden University, 1933.

A. B. de Vries 1959

A. B. de Vries. “Schilderkunst.” In Sprekend Verleden:
Wegwijzer voor de verzamelaar van oude kunst en antiek,
ed. Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, pp. 23-44.
Amsterdam, 1959.

A. B. de Vries 1964

A. B. de Vries. “Old Masters in the Collection of Mr.
and Mrs. Sidney van den Bergh Apollo 80 (1964):
352 - 59 .

A. B. de Vries et al. 1968

A. B. de Vries with entries by A. Blankert and W. L.
van de Watering. Verzameling Sidney], van den Bergh.
Wassenaar, 1968.

J. de Vries 1974

Jan de Vries. The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age,
1500-1/00. New Haven, 1974.

J. deVries 1981

Jan de Vries. Barges & Capitalism: Passenger Trans¬
portation in the Dutch Economy, 1632-1839. Utrecht, 1981.

L. de Vries 1984

Lyckle de Vries .Jan van derHeyden. Amsterdam, 1984.
L. de Vries 1990

Lyckle de Vries. Diamantegedenkzuilen en leerzaeme
voorbeelden: Een besprekingvan Johan van Gools “Nieuwe
Schouburg.” Groningen, 1990.

L. de Vries 1992

Lyckle de Vries. “Saenredam and Seventeenth-
Century Architectural Painting. Rotterdam.”
Burlington Magazine 134, no. 1066 (Jan. 1992): 51-54.

W. de Vries 1990

Willemien B. de Vries. “The Country Estate
Immortalized: Constantijn Huygens’ Hofwijck.” In
Hunt 1990, pp. 81-97.

Vroom 1945

N. R. A. Vroom. De schilders van het monochrome
banketje. Amsterdam, 1945.

Vroom 1980-99

N. R. A. Vroom. A Modest Message as Intimated by the
Painters of the “Monochrome banketje.” Revised PhD
diss., Universitet Nijmengen, 1945. Translated by
Peter Gidman. 3 vols. Schiedam, 1980-99.

Waagen 1838

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Works of Art and Artists in
England. 3 vols. London, 1838.

Waagen 1854

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Treasures of Art in Great
Britain, Being an Account of the Chief Collections of
Paintings, Drawings, Sculptures, Illuminated MSS., etc.

3 vols. London, 1854.

Waddingham 1964

Malcolm R. Waddingham. “Andries and Jan Both in
France and Italy.” Paragone, n.s., 15, no. 171 (Mar.

1964): 13 - 43 , figs. 15 - 44 .

J. Wagenaar 1760-67 (1971-72)

Jan Wagenaar. Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas,
geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen,
kerkenstaat, schoolen, scutterye,gilden en regeeringe
beschreeven. ... 3 vols. Facsimile reprint. Alphen aan
den Rijn, 1971-72.

L. Wagenaar 2014

Lodewijk Wagenaar, ed. Een Toscaanseprins bezoekt
Nederland: De twee reizenvan Cosimo de'Medici,
1667-1669. Translated by Bertie Eringa. Amsterdam,
2014.

Wagner 1971

Helga Wagner .Jan van derHeyden, 1637-1712.
Amsterdam and Haarlem, 1971.

Walford 1991

E. John Walford. Jacob van Ruisdael and the Perception of
Landscape. New Haven and London, 1991.

Wallert 1999

Arie Wallert, ed. Still Lifes: Techniques and Style. The
Examination of Paintings from theRijksmuseum.
Amsterdam and Zwolle, 1999.

Wallert 2006-7

Arie Wallert. “Refined Technique or Special Tricks?
Painting Methods of Jan van der Heyden.” In
Greenwich-Amsterdam 2006-7, PP- 91-103.

Wallert and Verslype 2009-10
Arie Wallert and Ige Verslype. “Ice and Sky, Sky and
Ice: Technical Aspects.” In Amsterdam-Washington
2009-10, pp. 129-39.

A. Walsh 1985

Amy L. Walsh. “Paulus Potter: His Works and Their
Meaning.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1985.

A. Walsh 1996

Amy L. Walsh. “Kann, Rodolphe [Rudolf].” In Grove
Art Online. Oxford University Press, https://
oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/gao
/978i884446o54.article.To45695.

A. Walsh 2007

Amy L. Walsh. “Ravishing Prospects.” Review of
Greenwich-Amsterdam 200 6-7. Apollo 166 (Mar.
2007): 110-12.

A. Walsh (forthcoming)

Amy L. Walsh, with conservation reports by
Rosalinde Westmoreland. Northern European Paintings
at the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena. Pasadena,
forthcoming.

J. Walsh 1971

John Walsh, Jr. “Jan and Julius Porcellis, Dutch
Marine Painters.” PhD diss., Columbia University,
1971.

J. Walsh 1974

John Walsh, Jr. “The Dutch Marine Painters Jan and
Julius Porcellis—II: Jan’s Maturity and £ de jonge
Porcellis.’” Burlington Magazine 116 (1974): 734-45.

J. Walsh 1974a

John Walsh, Jr. “New Dutch Paintings at the
Metropolitan Museum.” Apollo 99 (1974): 340-49.

J. Walsh 1981

John Walsh, Jr. “‘A Mirror of Nature’: The Carter
Collection of Dutch Paintings.” Apollo 114 (1981):
380-89.

Washington 1995

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. Dutch Paintings of the
Seventeenth Century. The Collections of the National
Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington,
DC, 1995.

Washington 1999

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. From Botany to Bouquets:
Flowers in Northern Art. Exh. cat.. National Gallery of
Art, Washington, DC, 31 Jan-31 May 1999.
Washington, DC, 1999.

Washington-London-Amsterdam 2001-2

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., et al. Aelbert Cuyp. Exh. cat..
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 7 Oct.
2001-13 Jan. 2002; The National Gallery, London,

13 Feb-12 May 2002; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,

7 June-i Sept. 2002. Washington, DC, 2001.

WCA

World Collectors Annuary. Edited by F. A. van Braam.

47 vols. Delft, 1946/49-1996/97.

Welcker 1933

Clara J. Welcker. Hendrick Avercamp, 1585-1634 ...en
BarentAvercamp, 1612-1679, “Schilders totCampen.”
Zwolle, 1933.

Welcker and Hensbroek-van der Poel 1979

Clara J. Welcker. Hendrick Avercamp 1585-16340 ...en
BarentAvercamp, “Schilders tot Campen.” Revised
edition of Welcker 1933 by D. J. Hensbroek-van der
Poel. Doornspijk, 1979.

Weltkunst 1950

“Frans Jansz. Post.” Weltkunst 20, no. 10 (1950): 6.
Weltkunst 1974

New House Galleries advertisement. Weltkunst 44,
no. 20 (15 Oct. 1974): 1623, ill.

270

Westermann 1996

Mari'et Westermann. Art of the Dutch Republic,
1585-1/00. London, 1996.

Wheelock 1977

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. Perspective, Optics, and Delft
Artists around 1650. PhD diss.. Harvard University,
1973. New York, 1977.

Wheelock Online

Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr. “Ambrosius Bosschaert
/Bouquet of Flowers in a Glass Vase/1621” In Dutch
Paintings of the Seventeenth Century, accessed 26 May
2014, NGA Online Editions, http://purl.org/nga
/collection/art object/94743.

Whitehead 1979

P. J. P. Whitehead. “Georg Markgraf and Brazilian
Zoology.” In Van den Boogaart, Hoetink, and
Whitehead 1979, pp. 424-71.

Whitehead-Boeseman 1989

P. J. P. Whitehead and M. Boeseman. A Portrait of
Dutch 17th-Century Brazil: Animals, Plants, and People by
the Artists ofjohan Maurits ofNassau. Amsterdam and
New York, 1989.

Williamstown-Sarasota 1994-95

Laurie B. Harwood. A Golden Harvest: Paintings by
Adam Pynacker. Exh. cat.. Sterling and Francine Clark
Art Institute, Williamstown, MA, 23 July-11 Sept.
1994; John and Mable Ringling Museum, Sarasota,
FL, 12 Oct. 1994-1 Jan. 1995. Williamstown, MA, 1994.

Van der Willigen and Meijer 2003
Adriaan van der Willigen and Fred G. Meijer.

A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters
Workingin Oils, 1525-1/25. Leiden, 2003.

Wilson 1992

William Wilson. “Burghers with Everything: The
Lure of Dutch Paintings.” Los Angeles Times, 3 Nov.
1992, Fi.

Wittstock 2008

Olaf Wittstock. Philanthrop undKunstunternehmer.Der
HildesheimerDomherr Johann Friedrich Moritz von
Brabeck (1/42-1814). Quellen und Studien zur
Geschichte und Kunst im Bistum Hildesheim 8, ed.
Michael Brandt and Thoms Scharf-Wrede.
Regensburg, 2008.

Von Wurzbach 1906-11

Alfred von Wurzbach. NiederlandischesKunstler-
Lexikon _3 vols. Vienna and Leipzig, 1906-11.

“Zomertentoonstelling 1955”

“Zomertentoonstelling 1955.” Bulletin Museum
Boijmans 5, no. 1 (Mar. 1954): 103-4, fig- 22.

Zurich 1953

Hollander des 17.Jahrhunderts. Exh. cat., Kunsthaus,
Zurich, 4 N0V.-20 Dec. 1953. Zurich, 1953.

271

PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS

P. 33: fig. 1.1 Photo courtesy of the Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

P. 33: fig. 1.2 Photo courtesy of the Teylers Museum,
Haarlem, The Netherlands

P. 39: fig. 2.1 Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

P. 39: fig. 2.2 Photo courtesy Amsterdam Museum

P. 49: fig. 4.1 Photo courtesy Mauritshuis, The Hague

P. 49: fig. 4.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

P. 79: fig. 10.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

P. 99: fig. 14.2 Photo courtesy The Museum of Fine
Arts, Houston

P. 99: fig. 14.3 Photo courtesy Getty Research
Institute, Los Angeles

P. 113: fig. 17.3 Photo courtesy Dordrechts Museum,
Dordrecht

P. 121: fig. 18.1 Image courtesy of Sotheby’s

P. 121: fig. 18.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

P. 127: fig. 19.1 Photo courtesy Teylers Museum,

The Netherlands

P. 153: fig. 24.1 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

P. 153: fig. 24.2 Photo courtesy Fries Museum,
Leeuwarden

P. 179: fig. 29.1 Photo courtesy the Cultural Heritage
Agency, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science,
The Netherlands

P. 185: fig. 30.1 Photo courtesy Getty Research
Institute, Los Angeles

P. 211: fig. 35.2 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

P. 213: fig. 35.3 Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

P. 221: fig. 36.1 Photo courtesy Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam

272

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 2019

Co-Chairs of the Board

Elaine R Wynn
Tony P. Ressler

Co-Chairs Emeriti

Andrew Brandon-Gordon
Terry Semel

Vice Chairs

Willow Bay
Robert Kotick

Trustees

William H. Ahmanson
Wallis Annenberg
Mark Attanasio
Ambassador Nicole Avant
Ambassador Colleen Bell
Dr. Rebecka Belldegrun
Allison Berg
Nicolas Berggruen
David C. Bohnett
Suzanne Deal Booth
Andrew Brandon-Gordon
Troy Carter

Eva Chow
Ann Colgin
Janet Crown
Kelvin Davis
Kelly Day

Joshua S. Friedman
Gabriela Garza
Thelma Golden
Tom Gores
Caroline Grainge
Mellody Hobson
Victoria Jackson
Suzanne Kayne
Lyn Davis Lear
Michael Lynton
Richard Merkin M. D.
Wendy Stark Morrissey
Jane Nathanson
Peter Norton
Geoff Palmer
Viveca Paulin-Ferrell
Janet Dreisen Rappaport
Carter Reum
Robbie Robinson
Steven F. Roth

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 2019

Hilda L. Solis, Supervisor ; FirstDistrict
Mark Ridley-Thomas, Supervisor ;

Second District

Sheila Kuehl, Supervisor ; Third District
Janice Hahn, Supervisor ; Fourth District
Kathryn Barger, Supervisor ; Fifth District

Carole Bayer Sager
Ryan Seacrest
Florence Sloan
Eric Smidt
Michael G. Smooke
Jonathan D. Sokoloff
Steve Tisch
Casey Wasserman
Dasha Zhukova
Ann Ziff

Life Trustees

Ambassador Frank E. Baxter

Daniel N. Belin

Donald L. Bren

Eli Broad

Robert A. Day

Camilla Chandler Frost

Julian Ganz, Jr.

Robert F. Maguire III
William A. Mingst
Lynda Resnick
Terry Semel
Sandra W. Terner
Walter L. Weisman

273

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carter Collection of Dutch Paintings"

See other formats